PDA

View Full Version : 2016 Presidential Election



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26

Dra508
10-21-2016, 04:25 PM
I don't know why we belly ache about media bias. If this was 30-40 years ago, we'd be getting all our news from one freaking guy - Walter Cronkite. That would be better?

The only time I see CNN or any of those channels is when I'm getting a manicure. Though the place I go to now puts Food Network on only.

This is Comedy Gold

https://youtu.be/e3C0GDIRs4A

sick among the pure
10-21-2016, 04:47 PM
I just can't wait for it to be over so the pickup that drives around town all day and night with a GIANT Trump sign in the bed to go away. That is, if it will. I could see them, and other Trump supporters, continuing to have signs up everywhere even after the election. But god, this sign, t's as big as you can get strapped down in the back of a pickup bed, it's ridiculous. Also, it was stolen from a Trump rally somewhere in new england, which is in itself hilarious.
I'm just wondering if these people will shut up and move on after the election, or if things will get even worse.

There was a neo-nazi klan organized in a local town by people who were brought together by the Trump campaign. They are frequenting the gun shops in the area and "stocking up, just in case he loses". If they ever found out that i'm not reporting on them because "I'm a Trump supporter", but also that I'm not a "straight cis white guy", I could very well wind up in the hospital when I'm out doing my job.

allegro
10-21-2016, 08:56 PM
SO powerful :-(


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCqFCCgU1xk

allegro
10-21-2016, 09:06 PM
I don't know why we belly ache about media bias.
I don't think anybody but TRUMP is bellyaching about media bias, along with his Groupies.

When the media was reporting about nothing but Trump in the first year of the campaign, Trump and his Groupies were sucking it up like Jack Daniels on a Friday night.

But when it's anything negative and the same press whores are covering it, then it's "media bias."

SEE THIS ARTICLE IN THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE FROM LAST SUNDAY (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-trump-criticism-kamin-met-20161007-column.html) wherein architecture critic Blair Kamin details his run-ins with Trump, where Trump first called Kamin "the best!" after Kamin gave Chicago's Trump Tower design a great review and then, after Trump stuck his giant TRUMP letters on the building a few years ago and Kamin and others called Trump to task on it, Trump called Kamin "dopey" and a "lightweight." See the article for more.

onthewall2983
10-21-2016, 11:07 PM
Trump Hotels Ditching Name For New Hotels (http://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/trump-scion-hotels)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiNJ6hjwv1M

Khrz
10-22-2016, 06:33 AM
Trump Hotels Ditching Name For New Hotels (http://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/trump-scion-hotels)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiNJ6hjwv1M

Scion? Really? After the borderline antisemitic tweets they're going with "Scion"? Alrighty then...


Edit : oops, nevermind that, I confused Scion with Sion.

onthewall2983
10-22-2016, 09:32 AM
The bigger news is that Trump's name is having a detrimental effect on his businesses, which could mean the beginning of his crumbling legacy.

What could happen if he doesn't concede. (http://www.vice.com/read/i-asked-an-expert-what-would-happen-if-donald-trump-lost-and-didnt-concede-the-election?utm_source=vicetwitterus) I think he will, it'll be like the thing with the New York Times, he'll huff and puff and back down at the last minute.

GulDukat
10-22-2016, 11:44 AM
Nate Silver on the state of the race:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-there-are-4-ways-this-election-can-end-and-3-involve-clinton-winning/

GulDukat
10-23-2016, 01:18 AM
SNL tonight:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/settle-down-entire-planet-tom-hanks-kills-it-as-chris-wallace-in-snls-3rd-trumpclinton-debate/

implanted_microchip
10-23-2016, 09:19 AM
IN "outlining his first 100 days" basically all Trump said was "I'' gonna sue those women for saying I assaulted them."

Wew

sick among the pure
10-23-2016, 12:58 PM
IN "outlining his first 100 days" basically all Trump said was "I'' gonna sue those women for saying I assaulted them."

Wew

When you become President, what will be the first thing you do with your new position?
"Revenge."

Yep. Yep that sounds about right. Good job.

Khrz
10-23-2016, 03:07 PM
"After the election" is not quite that, although I'll admit that coming from Trump, I doubt he meant it like "whatever happens after that".

And actually that article may be one of the first where I saw an actual outline of policies coming from that camp.

Policies beside Tropico levels of insanity I mean.

Dra508
10-24-2016, 06:03 PM
I actually saw a Trump tv ad this weekend here in Texas. A bit surprised he spent a dime here. Me thinks he might be worried.


Early voting started today too. I thought about going and making a big scene and be all Leslie Jones and shitz, but decided against it. Just going to bring my BF's 13 year old with me and show her how it's done.

allegro
10-25-2016, 03:10 AM
I actually saw a Trump tv ad this weekend here in Texas. A bit surprised he spent a dime here. Me thinks he might be worried.


Early voting started today too. I thought about going and making a big scene and be all Leslie Jones and shitz, but decided against it. Just going to bring my BF's 13 year old with me and show her how it's done.

I took my mom to early-voting yesterday. The line was an hour long. She didn't want to wait, so we left; but the old volunteer guy at the door said it was that way the whole day so far (we got there at 1 pm) and they expected it to be like that every day until Election Day.

Jinsai
10-25-2016, 10:56 AM
I took my mom to early-voting yesterday. The line was an hour long. She didn't want to wait, so we left; but the old volunteer guy at the door said it was that way the whole day so far (we got there at 1 pm) and they expected it to be like that every day until Election Day.

Can't you do a mail-in ballot? I'm asking this in sincere ignorance, because I really don't know. I've always just gone down to the polling place, which has always been a really fast process. I've never spent more than twenty minutes total voting, counting from the time I walk in the polling place to the time I walk out.

theruiner
10-25-2016, 11:22 AM
I was wondering the same thing, Jinsai. Though maybe not every state does it, I guess.

Thankfully we have vote by mail here and I mailed mine in on Sunday. So I'm done. Feels good to have voted, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with any lines.

Swykk
10-25-2016, 01:07 PM
Guys, it's almost over.

implanted_microchip
10-25-2016, 01:32 PM
Guys, it's almost over.

Part of me is so excited for this to be done; another part of me is utterly terrified of the trainwreck we're gonna see Trump fans cause and the news network he's gonna launch and the general fuckery that's going to ensue.

allegro
10-25-2016, 01:36 PM
Can't you do a mail-in ballot? I'm asking this in sincere ignorance, because I really don't know. I've always just gone down to the polling place, which has always been a really fast process. I've never spent more than twenty minutes total voting, counting from the time I walk in the polling place to the time I walk out.

Yes, the mail service is so fucking bad, here, you might as well set your ballot on fire.

My mom's precinct where she has to vote on election day is a condo recreation room at a huge condo development next door -- honest to shit -- and it's a fucking ZOO, so we were hoping to avoid that by her voting early.

My local voting early precinct is the Police Station which is the same place I go when I vote on election day, and it's NEVER that crowded, but I think the problem is that my county (Lake) has enough funds to have lots of election precincts and Cook county (where my mom is) does NOT have as many to handle all these friggin' voters. So 20 minutes per voter times the approximately 150 people who were in line when we got there ... yeah, that's a lotta time to wait around.

The voter turnout this time, though, is NUTS so I think we are seeing a LOT bigger turnout than in days past. I may go over to our local precinct today and get it done.

Edit: swung by my early-voting precinct today: whoa!!! Traffic people directing traffic!!! Then I get an email from City Hall about using various overflow lots for parking.

Wow.

allegate
10-25-2016, 03:32 PM
https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/790992445202915328

Colin Powell endorses Hillary.

Trump halts big-money fundraising, cutting off cash to the party. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/25/trump-halts-big-money-fundraising-cutting-off-cash-to-the-party/)

Dra508
10-26-2016, 03:34 AM
I heard the other day that early voting is all the people who have had their minds made up for a long long time. Undecideds really wait to the last moment, Election Day. All sorts of news about early voting being way up from 2012 here in Texas. Is it possible that Trump is getting out the vote better then Romney did? Or something else? Hmmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Conan The Barbarian
10-26-2016, 01:25 PM
I am kinda iffy on early voting. I am afraid something might happen. I live in texas and dont trust people here.

allegro
10-26-2016, 01:51 PM
I am kinda iffy on early voting. I am afraid something might happen. I live in texas and dont trust people here.


I don't understand ... what could happen to early ballots vs. election day ballots? Tampering? It's pretty hard to tamper with ballots.

I might vote on election day just because I like the whole "tradition" of it, kinda like the insanity of shopping on Christmas Eve but it was a "tradition" for me and my stepdad.

DigitalChaos
10-26-2016, 02:41 PM
vent:

The last few weeks I have seen a bunch of friends and coworkers in California post some lengthy shit about how they are voting for Hillary. It usually reads like some important vocalization they feel needs to happen, as if it were an endorsement or some sort of acceptance/realization that they have come to with her. It's such a big deal for them in the effort they put into these lengthy explanations.

WTF is the goddamned point? They live in fucking california! There was never a chance the state would go any other direction, especially this late in the process. Are these just the shitty "part of history" voters? It all just makes me roll my eyes so hard.

DigitalChaos
10-26-2016, 02:56 PM
I'm guessing few/none of you have been keeping up on the email leaks, but it's really the only thing in this election that I have been interested in lately. So here are some fun highlights on the technical side:



This is how they got hacked (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts). They got phished like only your grandmother can. Podesta (and others) click on a bit.ly link in an email, it redirects to a .tw website with a fake google login. Podesta enters his password. This attack is the most trivial things you can do. Literal children have been doing this for decades. "OMG IT WAS RUSSIA" really tries to overplay the sophistication of the attack. There are so many ways to have prevented this, like simply turning on 2-step verification. One of these days, we need to decided that it's not ok for individuals with this much power and responsibility to have such shit security. Or, maybe we can demand that all of their communications be visible to the public to begin with! :)



The emails can be proven legitimate, and not forged as many have tried to claim. (http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html) The hillaryclinton.com email server had DKIM, an anti-spoofing cryptography signing tech to prevent spam. The DKIM signatures are built into the headers of each email. Every DKIM signature shows as valid.



I haven't kept up on most of the actual leaks themselves. The only thing that I happened to see was this: Cheryl Mills Tells Podesta "We Need To Clean This Up - Obama Has Emails From Her" (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/podesta-shocker-cheryl-mills-tells-podesta-we-need-clean-obama-has-emails-her)

allegro
10-26-2016, 05:35 PM
I'm guessing few/none of you have been keeping up on the email leaks, but it's really the only thing in this election that I have been interested in lately. So here are some fun highlights on the technical side:


This is how they got hacked (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts). They got phished like only your grandmother can. Podesta (and others) click on a bit.ly link in an email, it redirects to a .tw website with a fake google login. Podesta enters his password. This attack is the most trivial things you can do. Literal children have been doing this for decades. "OMG IT WAS RUSSIA" really tries to overplay the sophistication of the attack. There are so many ways to have prevented this, like simply turning on 2-step verification. One of these days, we need to decided that it's not ok for individuals with this much power and responsibility to have such shit security. Or, maybe we can demand that all of their communications be visible to the public to begin with! :)
Thanks for that, I just passed it around to a bunch of people I know who would TOTALLY fall for that "Gmail Team click on this to change your password" email and they're not grandmas.

http://i.imgur.com/SKQ4V7X.pngo

DigitalChaos
10-26-2016, 06:12 PM
Thanks for that, I just passed it around to a bunch of people I know who would TOTALLY fall for that "Gmail Team click on this to change your password" email and they're not grandmas.



Yeah, im being a little hyperbolic there... but it's completely unacceptable for people with this much power and responsibility to fall for that shit AND not have any protections in place. Turning on google's 2 step verification stops a password compromise like this. The hacker cannot log in without the rotating code required for the 2nd step.

I wouldn't be responsible if I didn't warn you to NOT use your phone to receive 2-step verification SMS codes. The industry is starting to move away from them because of how easy it is to intercept SMS messages. Most people's cell numbers are very easy to find too (attached to online resumes, etc). Use the Google Authenticator app on a phone, or get one of those awesome YubiKeys. (I do both). And ALWAYS print off a copy of those 10 emergency backup codes should you end up getting your phone/key lost or stolen.

I've taught various groups about this stuff and am always happy to discuss more if desired. I can also point you to some great resources for expanding knowledge here that are very accessible.

DigitalChaos
10-26-2016, 06:15 PM
It's also worth noting that Podesta clicked that link TWICE. Which means he probably clicked it, entered his password, nothing happened, so he went back and did it AGAIN... only to encounter the same thing. Yet he STILL didn't think "hey that's not right, i should maybe tell IT/Security!"

allegro
10-26-2016, 07:44 PM
I wouldn't be responsible if I didn't warn you to NOT use your phone to receive 2-step verification SMS codes. The industry is starting to move away from them because of how easy it is to intercept SMS messages. Most people's cell numbers are very easy to find too (attached to online resumes, etc). Use the Google Authenticator app on a phone, or get one of those awesome YubiKeys. (I do both). And ALWAYS print off a copy of those 10 emergency backup codes should you end up getting your phone/key lost or stolen.
I have the Google app on my phone and I log in on my computer via a fingerprint on my iPhone.


It's also worth noting that Podesta clicked that link TWICE. Which means he probably clicked it, entered his password, nothing happened, so he went back and did it AGAIN... only to encounter the same thing. Yet he STILL didn't think "hey that's not right, i should maybe tell IT/Security!"
Well, no, because he thinks he was dealing with Gmail / Google, it wouldn't occur to him (particularly his generation) that it would be anybody BUT Google sending him that message.

It's like my Mom, when she sees something "flashing" on her screen telling her that there is some kind of security problem with her computer, she always assumes it's either her own virus protection program or her own computer, she NEVER thinks to (a) CALL HER DAUGHTER WHO HAS BEEN A COMPUTER GEEK SINCE THE THE 70S, or (b) assume that if there was something wrong, her anti-virus program has ALREADY HANDLED IT. Nope, she clicks on that flashing crazy thing that says CLICK HERE CLICK HERE CLICK HERE and then she does whatever it tells her, including calling them on the phone and letting them "clean her computer" or whatever the fuck they want, etc.

I was talking with somebody recently where this happened at a DOCTOR'S OFFICE, same thing, except the young secretary allowed a hacker access to all of the patient files. Yeah, she is no longer employed there but you can IMAGINE what a clusterfuck that is with privacy problems, etc.

onthewall2983
10-27-2016, 08:50 AM
Vince McMahon has told all WWE employees not to say anything about Trump, regarding his appearances for the company (https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/791359412807933952)

Dra508
10-27-2016, 11:02 AM
I wouldn't be responsible if I didn't warn you to NOT use your phone to receive 2-step verification SMS codes. The industry is starting to move away from them because of how easy it is to intercept SMS messages. Most people's cell numbers are very easy to find too (attached to online resumes, etc). Use the Google Authenticator app on a phone, or get one of those awesome YubiKeys. (I do both). And ALWAYS print off a copy of those 10 emergency backup codes should you end up getting your phone/key lost or stolen.


So use the two step verification, but choose the voice call my code?

I've started to use this for several accounts and tend to ask for a text rather than a call or send to email.

As for the emails, I have actually seen/hear a few stories about the latest. Josh Ernest did a good job clarifying, err walking back, Obama didn't know about HRC having a separate email account.

Oh and this. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/clinton-adviser-lets-attack-iran-to-aid-saudis-in-yemen.html

DigitalChaos
10-27-2016, 03:15 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - but your mom isn't given as much power as these politicans, and her email isn't directly connected to the work behind that power. You edited out the original question, but im happy to help over PM if that is preferred. there are various 2 factor setups depending on need. Multiple accounts under one key type, multiple people sharing an account, etc. all have solutions.


@Dra508 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=101) - just stay completely away from using telco (text or voice) as an auth mechanism. Some sites don't give you any other option, so you are kind stuck there. But at least try and lock down your "master" account. That's your email account that has just about everything important pointed at it, especially for "i lost my password" recovery options. For a lot of people, that happens to be their primary gmail account. So here is how I would suggest setting up and configuring 2-step on gmail (let me know if you have another service you need to configure and I can help):

- 1: Turn on 2-step: https://myaccount.google.com/security - last I checked, they force you to use SMS for the initial setup :(

- 2: Go into your 2-step add alternate 2nd step options. Choose one or more of the following:
-- Google Authenticator - free smartphone app, other services (like dropbox) support it, works without cell or data connectivity (lots of people get locked out with the SMS method when traveling out of country) Negative: you'll have to revert to a backup method and repair a new phone if you ever lose/break your current phone.
-- Google Prompt - An alternate to Google Authenticator. Easier to use, but I think it's google-specific. It does require a data connection. It has the same negatives as Authenticator.
-- Security Key - This is a physical hardware key that you plug into your USB port. You can associate as many of these keys as you want to your account. I suggest a YubiKey (https://www.yubico.com/products/yubikey-hardware/) which can also be found on amazon. $18-50 per key depending on what you want. (keychain dongle, dongle with NFC to make it work with your android phone too, or the mini that is meant to stay in a USB port). Negative: cost, no good option for logging in on an iOS device (until they support NFC).

- 3: If it's not already on, enable the "backup codes" as an additional 2nd step. Print those 10 codes out and put them somewhere safe. Then you don't have to worry about the lost/stolen phone/key situation.

- 4: NOW go and REMOVE the "voice or text" option. If it's active, it still is just as much a security hole into your account as when it was your primary method.


My setup is:
Yubikey nano on my laptop for pure convenience.
Google Authenticator for backup, and when I need to log in via my iPhone.
Backup Codes in multiple secure locations as my backup backup - I'll never need these unless my house burns down with my phone and laptop in it... or i get raided :P

DigitalChaos
10-27-2016, 03:33 PM
And don't get me wrong. 2-step even with SMS is better than just password. It puts your security higher than the majority of people already. It'll protect you from all the fucking user account leaks that are happening, from password phishing, etc.

But if someone is after YOUR account.. you don't want SMS/Voice as your 2-step. Maybe you are a celebrity or activist. Maybe someone knows you have a nice chunk of money in the bank. Maybe you just have the keys to something interesting at your work (Finance, HR, IT...) Or maybe it's some shitty ex or psycho date you had that wants to fuck with you.

This Wired article covers one of the ways it is done (getting a new phone/SIM added to your account) So Hey You Should Stop Using Texts for Two-Factor Authentication (https://www.wired.com/2016/06/hey-stop-using-texts-two-factor-authentication/). There are other ways of intercepting the SMS and/or voice calls that are less evident to the victim though. Telco companies are lazy and have had well known holes lasting well over a decade without fixing them. Here is an example (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/19/ss7-hack-explained-mobile-phone-vulnerability-snooping-texts-calls).

allegate
10-27-2016, 05:26 PM
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/14720379_1179791235393126_7665825470950750190_n.jp g?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=a3e1d11bc833addc0b8cc1f3c0e75f15&oe=58AB2040

Destruction of Walk Of Fame star leaves Donald Trump down to his last six Horcruxes (http://newsthump.com/2016/10/27/destruction-of-walk-of-fame-star-leaves-donald-trump-down-to-his-last-six-horcruxes/)

Dra508
10-27-2016, 05:31 PM
And don't get me wrong. 2-step even with SMS is better than just password. It puts your security higher than the majority of people already. It'll protect you from all the fucking user account leaks that are happening, from password phishing, etc.

But if someone is after YOUR account.. you don't want SMS/Voice as your 2-step. Maybe you are a celebrity or activist. Maybe someone knows you have a nice chunk of money in the bank. Maybe you just have the keys to something interesting at your work (Finance, HR, IT...) Or maybe it's some shitty ex or psycho date you had that wants to fuck with you.

This Wired article covers one of the ways it is done (getting a new phone/SIM added to your account) So Hey You Should Stop Using Texts for Two-Factor Authentication (https://www.wired.com/2016/06/hey-stop-using-texts-two-factor-authentication/). There are other ways of intercepting the SMS and/or voice calls that are less evident to the victim though. Telco companies are lazy and have had well known holes lasting well over a decade without fixing them. Here is an example (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/19/ss7-hack-explained-mobile-phone-vulnerability-snooping-texts-calls).Yes, I knew about the SS7 spoofing issue, that's been around for awhile. So many calls are now using Voice over LTE now I wonder if they have that shit figured out ?(full disclosure - previous career was selling to carriers - some are security hardos, some barely pay attention.) I used to use a RSA fob to get into our VPN - sounds like I should just get that again.


DRIFT

Don't forget to vote peeps!

allegro
10-27-2016, 05:45 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - but your mom isn't given as much power as these politicans, and her email isn't directly connected to the work behind that power. You edited out the original question, but im happy to help over PM if that is preferred. there are various 2 factor setups depending on need. Multiple accounts under one key type, multiple people sharing an account, etc. all have solutions
It's a PITA with her because I'm logging into her Gmail from MY computer at home, then the two-factor is asking me for a fucking code at home, then she's getting a notice at her place, then if I have a notice on an app on MY phone, it won't help HER at HER condo. So, yeah, no bueno.

Anyway, for my two Gmail accounts I'm using this (http://lifehacker.com/google-prompt-lets-you-use-two-factor-authentication-wi-1782413235) and it's awesome. But I can't do that for her account because ... yeah.

And I have Keeper on my computers, my phone, and on my iPads. If I got her a Fido U2F and activated that and got me one for her account as a backup, could I use mine as a backup for her account from my house? Because I need access to some of her accounts because she is elderly and I help her with computer and financial stuff. So this two-factor stuff doesn't think about these things. I *used* to use a GoToMyPC account to just log into her PC but having her passwords via her Keeper account is easier.

allegate
10-27-2016, 06:52 PM
Payback? Russia Gets Hacked, Revealing Putin Aide's Secrets (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/payback-russia-gets-hacked-revealing-putin-aide-s-secrets-n673956)

Jinsai
10-27-2016, 07:11 PM
And don't get me wrong. 2-step even with SMS is better than just password. It puts your security higher than the majority of people already. It'll protect you from all the fucking user account leaks that are happening, from password phishing, etc.

But if someone is after YOUR account.. you don't want SMS/Voice as your 2-step. Maybe you are a celebrity or activist. Maybe someone knows you have a nice chunk of money in the bank. Maybe you just have the keys to something interesting at your work (Finance, HR, IT...) Or maybe it's some shitty ex or psycho date you had that wants to fuck with you.

This Wired article covers one of the ways it is done (getting a new phone/SIM added to your account) So Hey You Should Stop Using Texts for Two-Factor Authentication (https://www.wired.com/2016/06/hey-stop-using-texts-two-factor-authentication/). There are other ways of intercepting the SMS and/or voice calls that are less evident to the victim though. Telco companies are lazy and have had well known holes lasting well over a decade without fixing them. Here is an example (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/19/ss7-hack-explained-mobile-phone-vulnerability-snooping-texts-calls).

I would just want them to start using fingerprint authentication on the text verification... or at least offer the option to do so

allegro
10-27-2016, 07:24 PM
I would just want them to start using fingerprint authentication on the text verification... or at least offer the option to do so
THANK YOU! Me, too. Just give me the option of doing that with friggin' everything.

GulDukat
10-27-2016, 08:54 PM
No Rain:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeffpearlman/status/662920956013211649

allegro
10-27-2016, 09:14 PM
Maddow has audio of Trump saying he was the best baseball player in New York (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/319432090078830592).

This was in, like, 1962. When Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Norm Cash were home run kings and MICKEY MANTLE was playing for the New York Mets.

ziltoid
10-27-2016, 09:17 PM
Here's a little comedic relief, and just remember it will be over soon in two weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbryz0mxuMY

allegate
10-28-2016, 11:01 AM
"over soon" he says...

http://assets.amuniversal.com/1310a10060b40134c32a005056a9545d

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 01:07 PM
@Dra508 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=101) - yeah, they have holes in LTE too. example (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/23/every_lte_call_text_can_be_intercepted_blacked_out _hacker_finds/)

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - easy to accomplish what you need. Best is to just add another auth mechanism (so you can then use either). Alternately use an auth mechanism that can live on multiple devices. You can have multiple yubikeys associated to a single account (and each key can associate to other accounts at the same time). Last time I checked, you could also save that QR code when enrolling Google Authenticator and point multiple phones at it. It's not officially supported, but it worked when I tried.

@Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) - fingerprints are convenient, but have two major downsides: 1 - They aren't protected by the 4th amendment under current rulings. So if it's the only thing needed to unlock a device, you can be forced to unlock without a warrant, whereas even a PIN code requires a warrant. 2 - You can't change your fingerprint should it ever get leaked or stolen. Apple's Touch ID is the only implementation that does it securely, so far. (I hope to hell they did the same implementation for the new Touch ID on the Macbooks!)
But that's why I love the YubiKeys. The user experience is basically like using fingerprint (you just tap the key) but you can also change out the key for a new one anytime you want.
http://i.imgur.com/KYzhsib.png

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 01:13 PM
"over soon" he says...

http://assets.amuniversal.com/1310a10060b40134c32a005056a9545d

Shit, and that's assuming we even have to wait 2 years for the congressional cycle. Trump, and/or his supporters, are positioned extremely well for a large media presence. There is a huge vacuum forming. So much of Fox News is falling apart. You also have Glenn Beck (who previously siphoned off a huge portion of the "too extreme for Fox" crowd) self-imploding his entire network (The Blaze) by saying he is fine with Hillary winning if it means Trump doesn't.

Deepvoid
10-28-2016, 01:44 PM
FBI is reopening Clinton email investigation. (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/303300-fbi-reopening-clinton-email-investigation)

tony.parente
10-28-2016, 02:05 PM
FBI is reopening Clinton email investigation. (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/303300-fbi-reopening-clinton-email-investigation)
Relax it's just another "security review" this is completely normal. /s

allegro
10-28-2016, 02:07 PM
Relax it's just another "security review" this is completely normal. /s

This is the friggin' craziest election ever.

Ever.

Like, even worse than Dan Quayle or Billy Beer or any of that shit.

and let us remember Spiro Agnew. And the majority of people on this board might go ... WHO?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3t_uVbGo4

tony.parente
10-28-2016, 02:09 PM
This is the friggin' craziest election ever.

Ever.

Like, even worse than Dan Quayle or Billy Beer or any of that shit.

As a country we might be electing our next president while they're are in the middle of a criminal investigation. I blame Sarah K

implanted_microchip
10-28-2016, 02:15 PM
I hate this year and need it to die

allegro
10-28-2016, 02:29 PM
As a country we might be electing our next president while they're are in the middle of a criminal investigation.
Well but they put the criminal investigation to bed and said there was no malicious intent. I doubt that any additional emails would indicate any malicious intent (remember, they could find 400 totally classified pieces of email and those emails would have to clearly indicate something like spying or trading secrets with Russia or selling nuclear weapons without the President's knowledge to Iran or some shit to point to malicious intent for the establishment of her server). Comey is doing this to get the heat off his own ass. To try to go after her for "perjury" during the investigation is iffy because she could have simply been mistaken as to what was transmitted, because she believed that nearly all classified decisions were made via "meetings" or via some kind of established land lines. They would have to prove that she deliberately and intentionally and personally had knowledge of materials and then lied; this is pretty hard to do with this stuff. It's not the same as Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" under oath and then they find his sperm on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress. But, the FBI has to investigate to appease the American public and the GOP.

Dra508
10-28-2016, 02:40 PM
Ahhhh, Watergate, it was much easier to figure out who was good and who was bad. And Deep Throat. :D


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

allegro
10-28-2016, 02:45 PM
Ahhhh, Watergate, it was much easier to figure out who was good and who was bad.
Well except Agnew wasn't Watergate, remember? Agnew was investigated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew)"by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. He was charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000 while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and Vice President." Agnew was going to replace Nixon after Watergate but then Agnew had to be replaced by Ford before Nixon was even out the door, for totally different stuff!

Now, THOSE were some crazy times.

Dra508
10-28-2016, 02:48 PM
Yeah yeah yeah, same era. As you say, a lot here might not remember, but I for one, have early memory of mom listening to those hearings day after day.

allegro
10-28-2016, 02:52 PM
Yeah yeah yeah, same era. As you say, a lot here might not remember, but I for one, have early memory of mom listening to those hearings day after day.

I didn't really care about any of it at the time, but we had to watch "All the President's Men" in high school, LOL.

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 02:53 PM
Ahhhh, Watergate, it was much easier to figure out who was good and who was bad. And Deep Throat. :D


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

love me some Deep Throat

http://i.imgur.com/B3vGS8S.jpg

ziltoid
10-28-2016, 02:53 PM
Has anyone here seen the new Micheal Moore documentary Trumpland?
I just came across this clip, which is an excerpt that ends abruptly, of the film and it's got me intrigued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc

Edit:
Of course, the clip making the rounds cuts Moore off mid-sentence, leaving out the rest of his point: “It will feel good—for a day. You know, maybe a week. Possibly a month.”
Then he adds, “Because you used the ballot as an anger management tool and now you’re f**ked.”

http://fortune.com/2016/10/26/michael-moore-trumpland-review-conservatives/

(http://fortune.com/2016/10/26/michael-moore-trumpland-review-conservatives/)

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 02:59 PM
Well but they put the criminal investigation to bed ... I doubt that any additional emails would indicate any malicious intent

With how much heat Comey and others in the FBI are getting... it kinda feels like a chance at a do-over. The idiots handed out FIVE immunity deals and have absolutely no prosecution to show for it.

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 03:06 PM
Has anyone here seen the new Micheal Moore documentary Trumpland?
I just came across this clip, which is an excerpt that ends abruptly, of the film and it's got me intrigued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc

Edit:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/26/michael-moore-trumpland-review-conservatives/

(http://fortune.com/2016/10/26/michael-moore-trumpland-review-conservatives/)
I've got it but haven't had a chance to watch it.

I have seen this clip though. Exactly as it is, it's one of the best explanations of many of Trump voters. It's the whole Brexit thing all over again. It's a global situation Trump supporters aren't this racist cartoon that the media tries to frame them as.

I don't think the rest of the sentence really matters though. "and now you're fucked" applies to either outcome of the election. Hillary sure isn't going to undo all the fucked up issues that Moore runs through during that rant.

Deepvoid
10-28-2016, 03:10 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv4Ix-6XEAAudmT.jpg:large

allegro
10-28-2016, 03:11 PM
With how much heat Comey and others in the FBI are getting... it kinda feels like a chance at a do-over. The idiots handed out FIVE immunity deals and have absolutely no prosecution to show for it.

It doesn't necessarily work that way; handing somebody "immunity" isn't necessarily balanced by prosecution; it is to get people to NOT take the 5th. The evidence that the FBI DOES end up with immunity deals may end up being shit or no evidence, but at least it's not the "we don't know what we do or don't have because everybody plead the 5th." Pleading the 5th does not absolutely indicate guilt; it just means that the people who might have DONE "stuff" (when Clinton, herself, personally didn't) are afraid that somebody (FBI, who are notorious for this) spin it to lay blame, so they want either the 5th or immunity so they don't end up being the fall guys when the FBI just want another notch on their belts. In this case, it would be pretty hard to get another notch when there is no evidence to support the notch.

allegro
10-28-2016, 03:22 PM
Has anyone here seen the new Micheal Moore documentary Trumpland?

I've read a lot of TERRIBLE reviews of it, that it's basically a bunch of terrible stand-up comedy; at first, he tries to get Trump fans sucked in via sympathy, but then it all becomes a 'VOTE FOR HILLARY' ad.

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 03:27 PM
Can't get any crazier, you say?

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161028/69608d819ea20561235cb6db0853e87c.png

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 03:44 PM
seems "reopening" isn't something Comey actually said. The House Oversight Chair added that interpretation to what Comey said. That shit spread like absolute lightning!

Deepvoid
10-28-2016, 04:16 PM
seems "reopening" isn't something Comey actually said. The House Oversight Chair added that interpretation to what Comey said. That shit spread like absolute lightning!

Yeah it looks like this has been blown way out of proportion. They are just checking classification of emails found on Weiner's device.
Emails not withheld by Clinton. Not on her private server.

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 04:25 PM
I think how fast that is spreading is a sign of how much we all needed a headline that basically says "Anthony Weiner's dick has reopened Hillary's FBI investigation."

2016 election is best election.

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 04:51 PM
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161028/565840bdc42a41489ed0b1949ca2ad38.png

Deepvoid
10-28-2016, 05:01 PM
So it looks like they found 3 emails FROM Huma to Clinton that were shared on both Human and Weiner's devices.
I don't understand why Comey made that presentation. He knew he was giving ammo to the GOP.

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 05:30 PM
Other sources are saying there are so many emails that they may not finish review of them until after the election.

Nobody knows wtf right now. The story is spreading like you'd expect a live terrorist attack to spread.

Jinsai
10-28-2016, 05:33 PM
the Yubico key is appealing... though the new Macbook Pros don't have conventional USB slots anymore...

allegro
10-28-2016, 05:41 PM
the Yubico key is appealing... though the new Macbook Pros don't have conventional USB slots anymore...

See this though. (http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/27/13439498/apple-macbook-pro-secure-enclave-t1-chip)

DigitalChaos
10-28-2016, 08:33 PM
Yeah, that fucking new macbook is going to be a pain in my ass for so many different reasons. Luckily, the keys for 2-step use an open standard: FIDO U2F. So, I am hoping someone writes a software U2F key that ties to the onboard Touch ID. THAT would be sweet, even better than if YubiKey releases a thunderbolt 3 key.

ldopa
10-28-2016, 11:36 PM
this election is tantamount to coughing, sneezing, burping, laughing, crying, sharting, and pissing all at the same time.
a fucking travesty. some entity's coup de grace on the united states. hunter thompson is beyond rolling in his grave. shame on everyone.

i'm so ashamed of my country.

trump and his shitheel son want to be in bohemian grove so bad it hurts. trump wants access to all classified government documents. he wants inside info and nothing more. hillary wants to fill (or outgrow) her husband's big ass sweet talking shoes. and be the first chick president, nothing more. these assholes don't give two shits about my or your future or your children's. and third party voting is a convenient joke.

also, i think alex jones is a dork, so don't throw his name with me.

elevenism
10-29-2016, 12:17 PM
Well but they put the criminal investigation to bed and said there was no malicious intent.
it doesn't matter though allegro .
What matters is that it's on the news all day again.

Why in the fuck did Comey do this? Why did he announce this shit to congress? He had no obligation to do so.
And it's so vague.

I swear, this seems fishy. It smacks of fish. What in the fuck is really going on here?

allegro
10-29-2016, 05:21 PM
it doesn't matter though allegro .
What matters is that it's on the news all day again.

Why in the fuck did Comey do this? Why did he announce this shit to congress? He had no obligation to do so.
And it's so vague.

I swear, this seems fishy. It smacks of fish. What in the fuck is really going on here?
Now the word is out that it is fishy, and Comey is possibly in very big trouble (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/opinion/comey-clinton-and-this-steaming-mess.html).


He told F.B.I. employees in a memo that he was hoping, with his announcement, not “to create a misleading impression” of some hugely significant discovery. But that’s exactly and predictably what he did.

Most Democrats were outraged. “Mr. Comey said he was duty bound to inform Congress,” Bob Kerrey, the former senator and governor, told me. “Quite the opposite is the case. He was duty bound to make an announcement after he completes his examination of the emails.“

Indeed, he broke with the longstanding F.B.I. policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations. He also defied the wishes of senior officials in the Department of Justice, according to various news reports early Saturday afternoon. And he frustrated everyone — conservatives, liberals, Trump, Clinton — because his disclosure was all questions, no answers.


See also this (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-officials-warned-fbi-that-comeys-decision-to-update-congress-was-not-consistent-with-department-policy/2016/10/29/cb179254-9de7-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html):


Comey’s decision to ignore the advice of Justice leadership is “stunning,” said Matt Miller, who served as Justice Department spokesman under then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. “Jim Comey forgets that he works for the attorney general.”

“I think he has a lot of regard for his own integrity. And he lets that regard cross lines into self-righteousness,” Miller said. “He has come to believe that his own ethics are so superior to anyone else’s that his judgment can replace existing rules and regulations. That is a dangerous belief for an FBI director to have.”

Michael Vatis, a former senior Justice Department official who is now a partner at Steptoe & Johnson, said Comey was probably trying to be transparent. But “transparency is not the foremost value in investigations. Fairness is,” he said.

“His statement has, quite predictably, been blown out of proportion and twisted into a signifier of some momentous discovery, when in fact, the new emails may turn out to reveal nothing new at all,” he said. “That’s not fair to Clinton.”

allegro
10-29-2016, 05:23 PM
these assholes don't give two shits about my or your future or your children's.
None of them ever really did.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0

implanted_microchip
10-29-2016, 05:38 PM
@ldopa (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=5203) that may be true but some of us aren't so privileged to be able to take whatever we're given by the rest of the masses. Those of us who are LGBT and want to be able to get married or not be discriminated against by landlords and employers, or are women who want control over their bodies, or are immigrants who don't want to be persecuted, or are dependent on a fixed income to survive and don't want to see it be privatized, or are struggling to pay off college loans, or still can't afford healthcare coverage, or works 40+ hours a week at minimum wage and is unable to pay their bills, or can't afford to go to school at all despite having the mind for it, or are terrified of being legally discriminated against due to their religion or the color of their skin kind of have to care. Not everyone is lucky enough to be largely untouched by a conservative-majority Supreme Court or having all three branches of the Fed controlled by Republicans. Some of us would potentially face a serious loss of rights or lack of progress.

It's a luxury to be able to sit back and be apathetic. It's a privilege to be able to act like it doesn't matter or that the differences are not steep enough. It's a blessing to not have to pay attention. Not everyone gets those blessings.

Add in such issues as our standing with foreign allies when Trump says we should be forcing them to compensate us for lending a hand and his dangerous attitudes towards nuclear warfare and possession of arms and our attitudes and policies towards climate change and it's pretty fucking impossible to just go "none of them care so eh fuck it" unless if you just truly do not care at all about pretty much anything that happens in this country and the impact it has around the world. But, hey, I'm sure it's a lot easier being married to inactivity-justifying cynicism at the end of the day.

allegro
10-29-2016, 06:01 PM
@ldopa (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=5203) that may be true but some of us aren't so privileged to be able to take whatever we're given by the rest of the masses. Those of us who are LGBT and want to be able to get married or not be discriminated against by landlords and employers, or are women who want control over their bodies, or are immigrants who don't want to be persecuted, or are dependent on a fixed income to survive and don't want to see it be privatized, or are struggling to pay off college loans, or still can't afford healthcare coverage, or works 40+ hours a week at minimum wage and is unable to pay their bills, or can't afford to go to school at all despite having the mind for it, or are terrified of being legally discriminated against due to their religion or the color of their skin kind of have to care. Not everyone is lucky enough to be largely untouched by a conservative-majority Supreme Court or having all three branches of the Fed controlled by Republicans. Some of us would potentially face a serious loss of rights or lack of progress
The thing is, though, is that even when the SCOTUS makes decisions, the states still pass laws that go against those decisions (look at all the states that make abortions close to impossible), and the average person isn't affected by abortion rights, gay rights, the minimum wage, etc., and they realize that the President doesn't affect shit like that, anyway, so they don't care. It's a tough reality, but it's true. All of us are working way more hours than we should, even those at the top, it's been that way since the 80s, the greed affects all industries and all wages and salaries, only the very top isn't affected and even Trump works every hour of the day and only sleeps 4 hours per day. "College" wasn't even something that was a requirement until the last few generations, people owned businesses who dropped out of high school until this "college requirement" became a corporatized requirement making the fat cats in colleges richer and Americans broker without any real guarantee of employment and leaving them with more debt. And the same ol' candidates (and their associated forms of corruption) are offered up over and over and over are never going to change this system. Bernie Sanders, himself, didn't have a shot at changing the system when he was up against a Congress that wants business as usual, with an apathetic voting populace that doesn't give a shit about anything that doesn't affect them personally.

Real "change" will require a HUGE and LONG upheaval of demand, a ground-up movement involving boycotts, strikes, protests, a shift in our entire value system where people aren't buying into this whole "college" system, anymore, and are refusing to feed the fat cats at the top, and are firing the people who have been in their state governments and in DC too long, etc.

Seeing this new "tiny house" stuff on TV makes me wonder if we are shifting from the McMansion materialistic culture where richer and bigger is better and focusing more on simpler lives with less cars, less TVs, less "stuff" which would certainly feed a movement where the top gets a lot less and has to pay more and spread the wealth around.

I know that I am seeing more and more people in younger generations who flat out refuse to work more hours, they leave at 5 and they're done, they refuse to be slaves to their work; and this totally confuses the management who are used to ass-kissing slaves of the 80s and 90s who would stay 12 hours per day with no overtime pay (I was one of them). These younger people? Fuck no, they have plans that night, they're leaving. And they're right.

THIS IS WHY THERE ARE UNIONS.

And Trump? He's pretending to care about the people at the middle and bottom, but his whole class is at the top, his commercial buildings and his luxury condos and his luxury hotels and his golf courses are aimed toward people at the top, and he does not give one fuck about the people he's aiming his campaign at, he is just suckering them into thinking he cares because he knows they want to hear the shit he's saying but he would not jeopardize the money he is making by giving up his tax write-offs or wouldn't pay more taxes or give up anything to them, not for one hot second.

And this debacle of the "AFFORDABLE" Care Act is a fucking disaster because it was written by INSURANCE LOBBYISTS who are lining the pockets of people we vote into Congress, and they really don't care about us. They SAY they do, but they only care about each other. They care about PROFITS. PROFITS. To them, and to each other. That's it.

hellospaceboy
10-29-2016, 06:25 PM
Seeing this new "tiny house" stuff on TV makes me wonder if we are shifting from the McMansion materialistic culture where richer and bigger is better and focusing more on simpler lives with less cars, less TVs, less "stuff" which would certainly feed a movement where the top gets a lot less and has to pay more and spread the wealth around.


I read the observation somewhere-I think on twitter- that the tiny house movement is a way to repackage poverty to the millennials, and i have to agree.

implanted_microchip
10-29-2016, 06:57 PM
Trust me I know things are terrible. I'm fairly young. I work shit hours for pay that makes me feel worthless and I still don't make enough. I don't know anyone under the age of 27 who isn't living in some form of shared housing be it by having four room mates in a two bedroom or still figuring some arrangement out with their parents. A lot of people didn't wbother with higher education because they knew they couldn't afford it and had no option of support from their family and had to get a job ASAP to get by. Things suck. No one I know has insurance. No one I know seems to have any real plans for the future because things are so up in the air for them. Everyone dreams of travel and no one does it. Everyone has some future career they'll ramble about and dream about and then do nothing to realize them. I work very hard to not be that way and it still at times feels useless to try.

But I'm not going to just say "fuck it" and stay away from voting when it's one of the few abilities to push for change that I have. I don't like almost anything about my life or the way the system we are in makes it so difficult to improve but I'm not going to sit around and bitch and moan and whine and cry while doing absolutely nothing about it beyond calling things "stupid" or "rigged." Fuck that. That just guarantees there will be no change.

And as someone who grew up being called "faggot" all the time, everyone younger who is LGBT that I know faces almost none od that due to the changes in our country and gay marriage being legalized at the federal level really did make an impact. These things matter. I don't see how becoming a cynical asshole on the internet will help myself or anyone else.

allegro
10-29-2016, 07:23 PM
Trust me I know things are terrible. I'm fairly young. I work shit hours for pay that makes me feel worthless and I still don't make enough. I don't know anyone under the age of 27 who isn't living in some form of shared housing be it by having four room mates in a two bedroom or still figuring some arrangement out with their parents. A lot of people didn't bother with higher education because they knew they couldn't afford it and had no option of support from their family and had to get a job ASAP to get by. Things suck.
And you know what's worse?

It's been that way for, like, THIRTY YEARS. I was still living at home at 27 and couldn't afford my own apartment unless it was in a fucking ghetto after my apartment building was sold and I had to move home, I as making terrible pay IN MANAGEMENT, working 50-60 hours per week, had NO HOPE of ever owning anything, blah blah blah...

AND THAT WAS IN 1986.

None of my friends could afford college of any kind except for one whose dad died when she was a kid and she got a bunch of money for college (but that only lasted her through her 3rd year then she had to drop out), otherwise we were all broke, struggling, laid off at some point or another do to the shit economy, and women were hardly ever promoted back then, got treated like shit, we were only supposed to be teachers or secretaries.

But we still vote because we keep hoping that "something" will change, even if it's to keep things from getting WORSE.

I was in 6th grade when abortion was still illegal and women went to jail for aborting their baby, or they had it done by some back alley doctor, or they bled to death by doing it themselves. Only rich women flew to another country to a "spa" to relax for a few weeks after having a legal and safe abortion. The Right now want to jail any doctor who performs an abortion.

By the way, eventually if you put just a little bit of money away here and there, after several years, I'm talking well into your late-40s, things really do get better financially, you just have to hang in there and keep plugging away.

i have joined the growing group of Americans who have become like something of a nomad, and I refuse to live anywhere where I am not surrounded by like-minded tolerant people and I go where the jobs are and the financial stability is. We are mobile people, it's not that hard to just get the fuck up and move away from the intolerant and ignorant people in this world who refuse to change and accept people and to go where the jobs live. It's why I no longer live in Detroit and I live in Chicago. My salary potential more than TRIPLED when I moved. It is no wonder why those tiny house people want to be mobile and have a house they flat-out own that can travel anywhere.

The thing is, things like the SCOTUS gay marriage decision etc. came from PEOPLE SUING (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Windsor). Edie Windsor had to SUE, using her own money and many attorneys, to get the Federal government to accept that she should not have to pay an estate tax on her longtime partner / wife's money after her wife died, and she lost but she appealed, again and again, and Edie's win is everyone's gain. Ditto for the Michigan couple suing to be able to adopt as a same-sex couple (http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/06/michigan_gay_marriage_ban_over_2.html) and that eventually led to the SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision.

Lilly Ledbetter started her legal process in 1998 before the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was finally signed in January of 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009).

And, sure, our voting for the President who nominated the SCOTUS judges made a difference but the SENATE approves those SCOTUS justices. And not all of those alleged "liberal" and "conservative" SCOTUS justices can be 100% counted on to be 100% either way, e.g. Sotomayor siding with Thomas on the recent domestic violence gun decision.

My point? The Presidential Election is too big of a focus, and it shouldn't be. People should ALSO be VERY focused on THE U.S. CONGRESS, on their state and local officials, and ACTIVISM. And we have to be grateful to all these people putting blood, sweat, tears and money into suing and the legal process, without which there would be ZERO change.

The lazy act of getting off our ass to vote for the President once every four years is not nearly enough.

allegro
10-29-2016, 08:23 PM
Btw, isn't this true?

https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10311240_10152858519601738_2041742714735300539_n.j pg?oh=02db4741013214ae3de572425ea51fdc&oe=588FEA06

implanted_microchip
10-29-2016, 08:35 PM
The Supreme Court and downballot races are why I've been so majorly opposed to cynical apathy this election. I absolutely agree we need to focus on things oter than POTUS but this election we may see Dems take back the Senate and a big part od why is getting people to vote for POTUS who will then vote for Senate when they see it on the ballot. It is unfortunate but it is easier to get people to vote for other things while they vote for POTUS than to get them to do it without doing so. Here in FL medical marijuana might actually pass because of how many people will be voting due to the presidential election; it almost passed in 2014 but few vote in misterms so it failed. The presidential election is about more than president and encouraging an attitude of "fuck it" discourages the odds of anybody going to vote downballot.

elevenism
10-29-2016, 08:54 PM
that cartoon is fucking priceless.

Jinsai
10-30-2016, 01:16 AM
and here in CA, we might legalize pot!

ziltoid
10-30-2016, 12:05 PM
People can go to the pols and IGNORE everything else on the ballot except POTUS because they are uninformed, stupid, apathetic or all of the above.

More people "show up" to Presidential elections than mid-terms because they are LAZY ... AND THIS IS A SHAME.

The past mid-term election I voted and my choices didn't mater. I was the only "young" person I saw that went to go and vote, everyone else was senior citizens. The people I wanted out of key positions remained the same. The judges I wanted to vote out stayed. The County Sheriff had no opposition. The state supreme court stayed the same. The law that I was against and tried to vote against, passed, now every business in my county has the right to refuse service to anyone they suspect is LBGT.I asked every one of my peers if they voted during the mid-term election and they looked at me like I was crazy and laughed. Now they complain about the things they could have changed. So when I see people who are apathetic towards exercising I get angry on the inside but at the same time I can see why they don't bother. Unfortunately, it doesn't change shit if only a handful of people vote.

cashpiles (closed)
10-30-2016, 12:33 PM
The past mid-term election I voted and my choices didn't mater. I was the only "young" person I saw that went to go and vote, everyone else was senior citizens. The people I wanted out of key positions remained the same. The judges I wanted to vote out stayed. The County Sheriff had no opposition. The state supreme court stayed the same. The law that I was against and tried to vote against, passed, now every business in my county has the right to refuse service to anyone they suspect is LBGT.I asked every one of my peers if they voted during the mid-term election and they looked at me like I was crazy and laughed. Now they complain about the things they could have changed. So when I see people who are apathetic towards exercising I get angry on the inside but at the same time I can see why they don't bother. Unfortunately, it doesn't change shit if only a handful of people vote.

They can refuse you business if you're LBGT? What is the exact law?

allegro
10-30-2016, 01:13 PM
They can refuse you business if you're LBGT? What is the exact law?
Here is the law in Indiana (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/), not sure if that is where ziltoid lives.

allegro
10-30-2016, 01:19 PM
ziltoid, I see a ton of middle-aged and older people voting in my area, but hardly any millennials; especially in the mid-terms but I don't recall seeing any at the primaries. Like I said earlier in this thread, when I was in college in 2007 for the 2008 election, a lot of young college students I knew DIDN'T GIVE ONE SHIT about the election, the war in Iraq, the crumbling economy and that we were on the brink of one of the worst recessions in history. Crickets. One time, during a gay pride college-wide day of observance, a giant rainbow flag was unfurled on the lawn of the mall in front of the chapel and a student in one of my art classes actually asked aloud of the class, with all seriousness, "what is that colorful flag for out on the lawn?" He'd never seen or heard of a rainbow flag representing LGBT rights, he and his fellow classmates just stay in their safe helicopter parent bubble.

On the other end of the spectrum, on the ballot for the March primary election my city had the District 112 Referendum (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/highland-park/news/ct-hpn-district-112-referendum-results-tl-0317-20160315-story.html). And it failed. Miserably. A BUNCH OF US citizens joined "CARE" or the Citizens Against the 112 Referendum (http://care112.nationbuilder.com/); we signed petitions, we sent letters to the local newspaper which were published, we put up lawn signs, and it took hardly any money, mostly our combined efforts and voices and votes.


Initial returns showed the "no" votes outnumbering the "yes" votes by a margin of about two to one, according to unofficial Lake County results.

The measure's cost alone made it a tough sell at a time when four out of five voters have no children enrolled in the school system, according to district estimates. The bond issue was expected to cost the owner of a $600,000 house nearly $750 in additional property taxes the first year, and rise over the 30-year life of the bonds.

I have read a few REALLY ANNOYING articles about judges, though, indicating that judges pretty much always keep their elected seats because voters automatically vote "yes" even though they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE JUDGE.

EXHIBIT "A" (http://abovethelaw.com/2012/11/legally-insane-judge-wins-re-election-in-chicago/)


The Honorable Cynthia Brim, a two–time winner of Judge of the Day honors, has returned to the headlines. But this time the news for Judge Brim is positive — well, for the most part.

On Tuesday, Judge Brim won re-election to the Cook County Circuit Court. The following day, she showed up in court — not as a judge, but as a defendant in a battery case.

You might be surprised by how much of the vote she won. Take a guess, then keep reading to find out (and to see Her Honor’s mugshot, which isn’t pretty)….

Here’s a report on Judge Brim from the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-judge-battery-1108-20121108,0,915067.story):


Judge Cynthia Brim, 54, whose 18-year tenure has been marked by controversy, told reporters as she left a criminal courtroom Wednesday at 26th and California that she was pleased by the election results, which she watched at home Tuesday night.

“I’m just happy the people voted me back in,” said Brim, who was suspended from her $182,000-a-year job in March after a wild week in which she was removed from her Markham courtroom after launching into a rambling 45-minute tirade and then, a day later, was charged with shoving a deputy at the Daley Center.

Soon after being charged with misdemeanor battery, a panel of supervising judges barred her from entering the county’s courthouses without a police escort. But neither that, nor the fact that numerous bar associations have recommended since 2000 that voters toss Brim from the bench, kept her from narrowly retaining her seat Tuesday.

It might have been a narrow victory, since Judge Brim needed 60 percent of the vote for retention and wound up with 63.5 percent. But it’s still impressive that she obtained support from almost two-thirds of the electorate.

Behold the power of incumbency. Last month, an article in the Chicago Sun-Times predicted that Judge Brim would prevail, noting that only once in the past 22 years has a sitting circuit judge gotten bounced (a judge with significant ethical issues).

Incidents like these call into question the wisdom of electing judges. As David Morrison of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform told the Sun-Times, “It’s virtually impossible for people — even lawyers practicing in court all the time — to know who’s worthy of being on the bench.”

(For the record, I VOTE "NO" FOR EVERY JUDGE ON EVERY BALLOT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JUDGES SHOULD BE ELECTED.)

elevenism
10-30-2016, 01:30 PM
shit, it's not just young people.
my exie was six years older than me ​and didn't know the difference between a republican and a democrat or give a fuck about current affairs.

allegro
10-30-2016, 02:24 PM
Former Bush Ethics Head Files Complaint Against Comey, Alleging Potential Violations Of Hatch Act (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/30/1588609/-Former-Bush-Ethics-Head-Files-Complaint-Against-Comey-Alleging-Potential-Violations-Of-Hatch-Act)


In a terse Op-Ed published in today’s New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html), Richard Painter, the chief White House Ethics Lawyer in the Bush Administration from 2005-2007, explains why he filed a Complaint yesterday against FBI Director James Comey with the FBI’s Office Of Special Counsel, which investigates possible ethical violations within the Bureau. In particular, Painter explains why Comey’s inexplicable actions this week may warrant prosecution for abuse of power under the Hatch Act.


I have spent much of my career working on government ethics and lawyers’ ethics, including two and a half years as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, and I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.

Painter, a former George W. Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich supporter, explains that had the Bureau made a similar public disclosure in its connection with the ongoing investigation ties between a certain presidential candidate and hacking of Americans’ emails by the Russian government, it would have equally constituted a breach of longstanding policy and an abuse of power. Specifically, the Hatch Act bars the use by a government official of his position to influence an election. Notably, whether one has an “intent” to do so is irrelevant:


The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election.

Painter recounts the known history in establishing the basis for his Complaint:


On Friday, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, sent to members of Congress a letter updating them on developments in the agency’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, an investigation which supposedly was closed months ago. This letter, which was quickly posted on the internet, made highly unusual public statements about an F.B.I. investigation concerning a candidate in the election. The letter was sent in violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy of not discussing specifics about pending investigations with others, including members of Congress. According to some news reports on Saturday, the letter was sent before the F.B.I. had even obtained the search warrant that it needed to look at the newly discovered emails. And it was sent days before the election, at a time when many Americans are already voting.

Violations of the Hatch Act and of government ethics rules on misuse of official positions are not permissible in any circumstances, including in the case of an executive branch official acting under pressure from politically motivated members of Congress. Such violations are of even greater concern when the agency is the F.B.I.

Painter takes pains to explain that this is not a joke:


The FBI’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election

Painter comments that absent highly extraordinary circumstances, Comey’s conduct does rise to the level of a Hatch Act violation and also may violate a prosecutor's obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. He emphasizes that neither Comey’s actions, whatever their motivation, nor Painter’s action in filing such a Complaint, are something to be taken taken lightly:


This is is no trivial matter. We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway. That is an abuse of power. Allowing such a precedent to stand will invite more, and even worse, abuses of power in the future.

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 03:09 PM
So, I don't know if the FBI got a warrant for the Hillary emails on Weiner's computer yet. But the only way a warrant seems possible (without violating the 4th amendment) is if there was immediate evidence of a crime.


Assuming laws are being followed on the side of the FBI, that might be ugly for Hillary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/30/was-it-legal-for-the-fbi-to-expand-the-weiner-email-search-to-target-hillary-clintons-emails/

allegro
10-30-2016, 03:21 PM
So, I don't know if the FBI got a warrant for the Hillary emails on Weiner's computer yet. But the only way a warrant seems possible (without violating the 4th amendment) is if there was immediate evidence of a crime.


Assuming laws are being followed on the side of the FBI, that might be ugly for Hillary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/30/was-it-legal-for-the-fbi-to-expand-the-weiner-email-search-to-target-hillary-clintons-emails/

Holy shit, this looks more ugly for the FBI! It looks like they are now seeking a warrant outside the scope of the Weiner investigation period if you read the whole article.


Here’s the problem. If the FBI was searching Weiner’s computer, it presumably had a warrant authorizing the search of the computer only for Weiner’s communications with underage girls. If that is correct, going from that narrow search to a broader search of Clinton’s emails raises two potential problems for the FBI.

The first issue is whether the FBI was permitted to search through Abedin’s email account for records of Weiner’s illegal messages with underage girls. In People v. Herrera, 357 P.3d 1227 (Colo. 2015), the Colorado Supreme Court provided some reason to think that the answer may be “no.” In Herrera, the government had a warrant authorizing the search of a cellphone for messages between the defendant and an undercover officer who had posed as a underage girl. When the police executed the warrant, the officers also searched a folder that contained messages between the defendant and a different (real) underage girl. The court held that searching the folder violated the Fourth Amendment because the only evidence authorized to be seized in the warrant — the messages between the defendant and the undercover officer — weren’t likely to be in the folder containing messages between the defendant and the other girl. I have criticized that reasoning, but it raises questions about whether the FBI could look through Abedin’s account for Weiner’s illegal emails.

There might be similar problems because the alleged Weiner texting crimes apparently occurred in 2016. I gather that the Clinton emails were from her time as secretary of state, which was several years earlier from 2009 to 2013. If I’m right that there was a several-year gap between the warrant crime and the second investigation, it’s not clear the government could search through older emails for evidence of such a recent crime. See Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282 (Del. 2016) (holding that the Fourth Amendment was violated when a warrant to search computers for witness tampering that occurred in 2013 did not include a date restriction on how far back the search could extend; evidence of crime from a computer not used since 2012 suppressed as a result).

A second issue is whether the FBI was permitted to seize the Abedin emails, which were outside the scope of the warrant, and to use them to reopen the investigation into Clinton’s email server. I think this is the bigger legal issue for the FBI. Most courts have treated this as a matter of the “plain view” exception. If the government is searching a computer, and it comes across files that are outside its warrant but are clear evidence of second unrelated crime, the usual government practice is to take those files and use them to get a second warrant to search the computer for the second crime. That’s what the FBI appears to be doing here. They are getting a second warrant after discovering Abedin’s emails because what was likely a first warrant for Weiner’s emails wouldn’t justify the second and broader search. See, e.g., United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999).

But if that’s true, there’s a problem: The plain view exception does not allow evidence to be seized outside a warrant unless it is “immediately apparent” upon viewing it that it is evidence of another crime. Just looking quickly at the new evidence, there needs to be probable cause that it is evidence of a second crime to justify its seizure, which would presumably be necessary to apply for the second warrant. See Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987); United States v. Williams, 592 F. 3d 511, 522 (4th Cir. 2010).

But it’s not clear how that would be the case here. Comey’s letter to Congress is really tentative. It says that the FBI has discovered emails that “appear to be pertinent” to the Clinton investigation. Comey then says that the FBI should take “appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” One report says that the FBI has “no idea” about the content of the emails.

The Fourth Amendment plain view standard doesn’t allow a seizure of emails based on a mere we-hope-to-later-determine standard. The government can’t seize the emails just because the Clinton investigation is extra important and any possible evidence is worth considering. Rather, the Fourth Amendment requires the initial look at the emails to generate “immediate” probable cause that they are evidence of a crime first, before their seizure is permitted and used to get a second warrant.

Was the plain view discovery sufficiently clear and illuminating that it gave the FBI that probable cause? We don’t yet know.

I should add that the scope of the plain view doctrine for computer searches is very much in flux, which adds some uncertainty to this issue. For example, the FBI might argue that using the discovery of the Clinton emails to apply for a second warrant was permitted by the first warrant and is not an additional “seizure” and therefore does not need to be justified. By that reasoning, the FBI is free to scour Weiner’s laptop for evidence of any other crimes for as long as it wants, and to take its time to see if there is enough evidence to justify a second warrant.

I think that’s a somewhat hard argument to make in light of the plain view cases such as Carey and Williams, but it’s at least possible. I should also add that some courts and scholars, myself included, have suggested that the plain view doctrine should be narrowed or even eliminated in computer search cases. Under that reasoning, expanding the search becomes more clearly problematic. See this recent article for more on my views.

I should also flag the question of whose rights are at issue, which determined who would have standing to enforce their rights. The computer was used by Weiner and Abedin, which means that it’s only their Fourth Amendment rights, not Clinton’s or other staffers’, that are potentially at stake. Hypothetically, if the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment in the course of getting to the Clinton emails, and the emails end up revealing crimes involving Clinton staffers and Clinton, the only Clinton person who could move to suppress the evidence would be Abedin.

elevenism
10-30-2016, 03:26 PM
Former Bush Ethics Head Files Complaint Against Comey, Alleging Potential Violations Of Hatch Act (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/30/1588609/-Former-Bush-Ethics-Head-Files-Complaint-Against-Comey-Alleging-Potential-Violations-Of-Hatch-Act)
Oh shit.
So it begins.

The timing of this whole thing has my inner conspiracy theorist working overtime.
Did Comey do all this for the sake of transperancy? I think political motivation is just as likely.

And talk about abuse of power. This terrible bastard just MIGHT have altered US history, and not for the better.
The DOJ told him NOT to send the letter. And the FBI presumably hadn't even READ the emails on the laptop when the letter was written.
This is so fucking crazy.

allegro
10-30-2016, 03:34 PM
Did Comey do all this for the sake of transperancy? I think political motivation is just as likely.
Well, this is exactly why the Hatch Act complaint has been filed.

Comey was advised by HIS BOSSES at the DOJ to NOT announce anything to Congress while this was in the "investigative" phase since they know NOTHING at this point and the FBI's standard OP is to not talk about any case until the investigation is complete. The FBI -- AND ANY FEDERAL EMPLOYEE -- is not allowed to do anything to slant or influence an election.

My husband isn't even allowed to wear a candidate pin or t-shirt at work or post anything for or against a candidate on social media while on-the-job! Any Federal employee knows the details of the Hatch Act (https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Pamphlet%20Sept%202014.pdf).


May not engage in political activity — i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group — while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle. For example:
> May not distribute campaign materials;
> May not display campaign materials or items;
> May not perform campaign related chores;
> May not wear or display partisan political buttons, t-shirts, signs, or other items;
> May not make political contributions to a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group;
> May not post a comment to a blog or a social media site that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group;
> May not use any e-mail account or social media to distribute, send, or forward content that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.

A Covered Employee:
> May not be a candidate for nomination or election to public office in a partisan election.
> May not use his or her official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election. For example:
> May not use his or her official title or position while engaged in political activity.
> May not invite subordinate employees to political events or otherwise suggest to subordinates that they attend political events or undertake any partisan political activity.
> May not knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of anyone who has business before their employing office.
> May not solicit, accept, or receive a donation or contribution for a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group. For example:
> May not host a political fundraiser;
> May not invite others to a political fundraiser;
> May not sell tickets to a political fundraiser;
> May not use any e-mail account or social media to distribute, send, or forward content that solicits political contributions.
__________________

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 04:16 PM
Holy shit, this looks more ugly for the FBI! It looks like they are now seeking a warrant outside the scope of the Weiner investigation period if you read the whole article.

You've bolded the entire part I was talking about. If they are granted a warrant, it means there is imminent probable cause of a crime to justify a warrant. That's bad for Hillary if so.

So now we all wait.

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 04:28 PM
the FBI presumably hadn't even READ the emails on the laptop when the letter was written.
This is so fucking crazy.

It's the "plain sight" equivalent in electronic evidence.

If cops are executing a search warrant on your friends bedroom, they can't go search the locked safe in the basement that holds all of your stolen jewelry.

But if they pass a locked china cabinet on the way to the bedroom and see stolen jewelry, the cops now have sufficient evidence to issue a search warrant for that china cabinet.

So the cops have clear evidence of a crime, but still need to investigate further to see how far it goes. Not sure how common it is for cops to talk about said china cabinet before they get a warrant, even if they fully control the crime scene.

allegro
10-30-2016, 04:39 PM
You've bolded the entire part I was talking about. If they are granted a warrant, it means there is imminent probable cause of a crime to justify a warrant. That's bad for Hillary if so.

So now we all wait.

You are not reading it carefully.

"The plain view exception does not allow evidence to be seized outside a warrant unless it is “immediately apparent” upon viewing it that it is evidence of another crime. Just looking quickly at the new evidence, there needs to be probable cause that it is evidence of a second crime to justify its seizure, which would presumably be necessary to apply for the second warrant. See Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987); United States v. Williams, 592 F. 3d 511, 522 (4th Cir. 2010).

But it’s not clear how that would be the case here. Comey’s letter to Congress is really tentative. It says that the FBI has discovered emails that “appear to be pertinent” to the Clinton investigation. Comey then says that the FBI should take “appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” One report says that the FBI has “no idea” about the content of the emails."

The Fourth Amendment plain view standard doesn’t allow a seizure of emails based on a mere we-hope-to-later-determine standard. The government can’t seize the emails just because the Clinton investigation is extra important and any possible evidence is worth considering. Rather, the Fourth Amendment requires the initial look at the emails to generate “immediate” probable cause that they are evidence of a crime first, before their seizure is permitted and used to get a second warrant.

There might be similar problems because the alleged Weiner texting crimes apparently occurred in 2016. I gather that the Clinton emails were from her time as secretary of state, which was several years earlier from 2009 to 2013. If I’m right that there was a several-year gap between the warrant crime and the second investigation, it’s not clear the government could search through older emails for evidence of such a recent crime. See Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282 (Del. 2016) (holding that the Fourth Amendment was violated when a warrant to search computers for witness tampering that occurred in 2013 did not include a date restriction on how far back the search could extend; evidence of crime from a computer not used since 2012 suppressed as a result).

The [other] issue is whether the FBI was permitted to search through Abedin’s email account for records of Weiner’s illegal messages with underage girls. In People v. Herrera, 357 P.3d 1227 (Colo. 2015), the Colorado Supreme Court provided some reason to think that the answer may be “no.” In Herrera, the government had a warrant authorizing the search of a cellphone for messages between the defendant and an undercover officer who had posed as a underage girl. When the police executed the warrant, the officers also searched a folder that contained messages between the defendant and a different (real) underage girl. The court held that searching the folder violated the Fourth Amendment because the only evidence authorized to be seized in the warrant — the messages between the defendant and the undercover officer — weren’t likely to be in the folder containing messages between the defendant and the other girl. I have criticized that reasoning, but it raises questions about whether the FBI could look through Abedin’s account for Weiner’s illegal emails."

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 04:51 PM
I don't get your point. Are you trying to say they prematurely seized the emails or something? I don't believe the emails have left the bounds of the Weiner investigation yet. They are waiting on a warrant to do so.

Or are you focusing on Comey's exact phrasing in the letter and, through very subjective interpretation, pointing toward them not having immediate probable cause? If so, it seems odd to try and deduce the legal structure off of a letter like this. Here is another interpretation: "Appear to be pertinent" = probable cause. "Appropriate investigative steps" = get a warrant based on the probable cause and then dig even deeper.

allegro
10-30-2016, 04:54 PM
I don't get your point. Are you trying to say they prematurely seized the emails or something? I don't believe the emails have left the bounds of the Weiner investigation yet. They are waiting on a warrant to do so.

Or are you focusing on Comey's exact phrasing about the emails pointing toward them not having immediate probable cause? If so, it seems odd to try and deduce the legal structure off of a letter like this. "Appear to be pertinent" = probable cause. "Appropriate investigative steps" = get a warrant based on the probable cause and then dig even deeper.

I am saying read all of the above very carefully. The guy is right on all points.

No, they had zero immediate probable cause. They haven't even READ any Clinton emails from the Abedin account yet and the emails they did see listed were from periods WAY BEFORE the time period of the Weiner sexting and NOT on Weiner's accounts but on HIS WIFE"S account AND SHE WASN'T THE ONE SENDING TEXTS TO A TEENAGE GIRL so they didn't even have a WARRANT to search HER ACCOUNTS.

Comey said: the FBI should take “appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation"


Appear to be pertinent does not equal "are pertinent" particularly when they admitted that they have to be "allowed to review the emails" which means THEY HAVEN'T REVIEWED THEM and they were only given a warrant to review WEINER'S account during the time period of the SEXTING CRIME (2016) and not DURING THE TIME THE CLINTON WAS SECRETARY OF STATE and NOT ON HIS WIFE'S ACCOUNT SINCE SHE DID NOTHING WRONG.

And the guy (above) cited legal precedent, this isn't stuff he's pulling out of his ass, here.

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 04:57 PM
But hey, maybe Comey really is clueless about such basic legalities of his work. Maybe he gets investigated and the conclusion is: well, he was reckless, but there isn't any evidence that he did so intentionally... So we cannot recommend charges.

allegro
10-30-2016, 05:03 PM
But hey, maybe Comey really is clueless about such basic legalities of his work. Maybe he gets investigated and the conclusion is: well, he was reckless, but there isn't any evidence that he did so intentionally... So we cannot recommend charges.
Hardy har har. This is a much easier case to prove, you don't need "intent" with this case.

He not only violated the Hatch Act, he violated Abedin's 4th Amendment rights. In plain sight.

But the FBI are terrorist whores fighting for our American Freedom God Bless America!, so they can pretty much do whatever they want.

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 05:41 PM
Appear to be pertinent does not equal "are pertinent"


The "appears to be" only changes to "is" after a warrant is granted and an investigation is done.



they admitted that they have to be "allowed to review the emails" which means THEY HAVEN'T REVIEWED THEM


No shit. Review happens after a warrant allows it. They have no doubt viewed at least enough to demonstrate probable cause for a warrant. Viewed. Not reviewed. Reviewed is the deep analysis the FBI does much later under a warrant.




they were only given a warrant to review WEINER'S account during the time period of the SEXTING CRIME (2016) and not DURING THE TIME THE CLINTON WAS SECRETARY OF STATE and NOT ON HIS WIFE'S ACCOUNT SINCE SHE DID NOTHING WRONG.


Again. No shit. That's why they are asking for a new warrant. There are still plenty of ways for them to legally stumble on Hillary related emails in the scope of the Weiner Investigation. And it will be up to a judge to decide that before granting the warrant.

allegro
10-30-2016, 05:47 PM
They have no doubt viewed at least enough to demonstrate probable cause for a warrant. Viewed. Not reviewed. Reviewed is the deep analysis the FBI does much later under a warrant.
It's truly heartwarming that you believe the FBI is trustworthy enough to know upon a cursory look at a subject matter in a string of emails 4 years before the subject period of the current warrant in the account of somebody else outside the scope of the current warrant that they are to be believed; really, I'm flying a tiny little American flag here at my desk and humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 05:58 PM
Actually, it's because of how loose and arbitrary the laws are around digital evidence collection. And the shoddy tools and methods that lean toward examination of everything instead of a restricted scope. Hell, do you even know what Weiner's warrant was scoped to? It was probably every single file on that computer.

And don't forget the horrid security of someone who can't keep dick pics out of the public. His wife's emails were probably the equivalent of being printed out and dropped on the kitchen table. aka plain view.

allegro
10-30-2016, 06:07 PM
Actually, it's because of how loose and arbitrary the laws are around digital evidence collection. And the shoddy tools and methods that lean toward examination of everything instead of a restricted scope. Hell, do you even know what Weiner's warrant was scoped to? It was probably every single file on that computer. .
No, actually, I know very well the scope of digital laws, you have to be REALLY specific as to digital collection, look at the case law that guy already provided (http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=237790), this case law isn't new, it's been around for a long long time, it's come a long way since the debacle of "Rusty and Edie's."

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 06:08 PM
Show me Weiner's warrant scope and I'll show you multiple ways to see his wife's email while obeying the warrant.

allegro
10-30-2016, 06:11 PM
Show me Weiner's warrant scope and I'll show you multiple ways to see his wife's email while obeying the warrant.

OKAY WAIT:

It ends up, through my searching around a little, that Weiner gave his own computer to the FBI without a warrant, said "here ya go" probably in an effort to take some time off his potential sentence.

But after that, they found out about the EXISTENCE of the shared laptop. They haven't even LOOKED at the fucking thing, yet.

And they will need a warrant to look at it.
(http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/fbi-warrant-shared-anthony-weiner/2016/10/28/id/755910/)

BECAUSE IT IS SHARED.

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 06:22 PM
Now you are just in denial. There are so many ways for her email to not have a clear boundary.

Also, the DoJ said Huma is "fully cooperating" which probably means she let the FBI look?

Let's just wait and see :)

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 06:25 PM
Post 2 after your edit:
Wtf. Ok so Weiner has no 4th amendment protections after that. And we have Huma "fully cooperating" ... interesting. Based on your last link, I really don't see any wrong done by the FBI so far.

allegro
10-30-2016, 06:26 PM
Listen, dude, after what I have seen with the FBI, there will NEVER be a case, until the day I am dead and cremated, that I will ever trust anything the FBI says.

No matter which candidate it was about, ever.

These are the same people demanding to break into iPhones. These are the same people wanting full access to all of our computers for no fucking reason. These people are the reason I have to lock down my credit account until I die.

Nope, sorry.

edit: Yes, Huma probably knows there is NO CLINTON SMOKING GUN but there might be enough evidence to PUT HER PERVERT ESTRANGED HUSBAND IN PRISON.

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 06:29 PM
Trust or no trust, I'm talking about the consequences that will come from this. I trust all aspects of govt much less than you. But I won't deny their ability to alter things and impose consequence.

You sure did seem to trust the FBI's findings after they cleared Hillary though :p

allegro
10-30-2016, 06:30 PM
Yeah, they alter consequences the WAY THEY WANT. It doesn't even have to be the TRUTH, it just has to be THEIR WAY.

They can easily put innocent people away, they do it all the time.

J Edgar Hoover being the most egregious example of a power-hungry FBI asshole.

Deepvoid
10-30-2016, 07:55 PM
Clinton has taken a hit in the polls following the FBI announcement. She needs a strong week.
She lost 2 points in the 4-way Realclear politics average.
She still has a good lead on the electoral college map but it definitely doesn't look as good as two weeks ago.

This is gonna be nerve-racking.

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 07:58 PM
She was already starting to dip in the polls. It's way too early for the FBI thing to have a visible impact. 24hr turnaround time for a poll? Nah.

DigitalChaos
10-30-2016, 07:58 PM
And the warrant has been granted to the FBI.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12U0V8?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Co ntent&utm_content=581683a804d3011aad8161ed&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

allegro
10-30-2016, 08:41 PM
Now G and I hope that Trump wins this election just to shove him up America's ass.

I haven't voted yet. We may vote for Trump just to jam Trump up America's ass.

When he does all kinds of Constitutional crazy shit, G and I will have crazy parties at home and laugh and laugh.

I'LL GET A HUGE FUCKING TAX CUT OUT OF IT, YEEEEE HAAAA!

WE'LL BE RETIRED SO IT WON'T MATTER, MUA HA HA HA BREAK OUT THE CHAMPAGNE MOTHERFUCKERS!!

WE'RE GOING TO 16 FOR DINNER!!!

http://www.goldcoastrealty-chicago.com/images/chicago-3.0-dining-header_720.jpg

implanted_microchip
10-30-2016, 08:57 PM
Yes, shove him up the asses of the majority who refused to support him

allegro
10-30-2016, 09:01 PM
Don't matter. Congress won't support Hillary, either.

We're fucked either way.

Edit: EXCEPT NOT ME NO AMT (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax) WEEEEEE

implanted_microchip
10-30-2016, 10:05 PM
If you're really being serious about this then I can't believe the respect I've lost for you

allegro
10-30-2016, 10:13 PM
If you're really being serious about this then I can't believe the respect I've lost for you

You mean for an anonymous person on the Internet? I may actually write in my dog's name. But who cares? Most lazy asses don't bother doing anything except voting once every 4 years and expect that to be enough. Voting isn't enough.

This is the big place people are "doing something?"

Yeah good luck.
DigitalChaos can make sure you get the anarchy handbook to insure your income remains at zero.

Right now I am following DigitalChaos and his method of being totally Punk Rock (tm) at a high income level by doing the opposite of what is expected. Like, Devil's Advocate, except no capital gains baby! Even John Lydon married an heiress!! (https://www.google.com/amp/la.curbed.com/platform/amp/2013/11/25/10170182/sex-pistols-johnny-rotten-selling-really-unpunk-malibu-ranch-for-1995)

My punk rock self is saying fuck off to the whole thing.

marodi
10-30-2016, 10:41 PM
The sarcasim™ is strong with allegro.

You should all write in Alice Cooper I say!

implanted_microchip
10-30-2016, 11:06 PM
Sorry, I have lost all sense of humor about this whole travesty at this point, don't mind me

allegro
10-30-2016, 11:15 PM
The sarcasim™ is strong with allegro

You should all write in Alice Cooper I say!

Yes! I will! GOOD IDEA!! :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i4EnjRKVQw

botley
10-31-2016, 01:19 AM
It's pretty sad how badly this election is going to traumatize your country. I'm also sorry that the fate of the fucking world didn't depend on you collectively deciding whether or not to press the right button. If we all wake up on Nov. 9th to a Trump win, there's no going back, no do-overs. And then you're in for at least four very painful and embarrassing years; I should know, I watched Toronto elect Rob Ford as our Mayor and come very close to electing his slimy brother Doug too, ugh.

You know that guy Daniel Dale, the reporter who does #TrumpCheck every day to report the DOZENS of untruthful statements Trump spews daily? He is emboldened to call out them out as lies, because he spent years training for it by covering Ford's verbal vomitus every day at Toronto City Hall. It wasn't pretty, either. And the newspaper he works for grew balls big enough to say 'you know what? Fuck being neutral, there is no reason to dance around and hide the fact that this guy is compulsively lying about everything and getting away with it.'

Look through Dale's coverage of the Presidental debates. Donald lies TEN TIMES as much as Hillary; it's not even in the same ballpark. America, your Daddy Donald is an abuser. This is an opportunity to get away from him. We know Mommy Hil isn't perfect either, but you have to pick which one you go to live with for four years, and which one to kick out. Please kick out Donald, you will still get to continue watching him glow bright orange on your TVs.

Timinator
10-31-2016, 12:00 PM
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b262/tdickin/alice.png

marodi
10-31-2016, 02:28 PM
Alice has a fantastic platform:



1. Getting Brian Johnson back in AC/DC

2. A snake in every pot

3. No more pencils, no more books

4. Adding Lemmy to Mt. Rushmore

5. Rename Big Ben "Big Lemmy"

6. Groucho Marx on the $50 bill

7. Peter Sellers on the Ł20 note

8. Cupholders required for every airplane seat

9. Ban on talking during movies in movie theatres

10. Ban on taking selfies, except on a designated National Selfie Day

Source: http://www.aliceforpresident.com/

He can't do worse than Clinton/Trump, right?

But seriously, what botley said.

DigitalChaos
10-31-2016, 02:40 PM
Yes, shove him up the asses of the majority who refused to support him

This has been the progressive playbook for a long time.

DigitalChaos
10-31-2016, 02:41 PM
CNN officially boots Donna Brazile over leaked emails showing her giving debate & town hall questions to Hillary in advance.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/cnn-severs-ties-with-donna-brazile-230534


Edit: fucking lol
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161031/090b3eeb59396f0e067042b344e8484e.png

allegro
10-31-2016, 03:55 PM
Ugh, I've always loathed Donna Brazile. It figures.

DigitalChaos
10-31-2016, 04:06 PM
Fucking with an election is bullshit. But Harry Reid leading the "Comey broke the law by using an official position to alter the election" bullhorn is laughable. He is the same guy who accused Romney of not paying taxes. When Reid was confronted about those allegations being false he said "well he didn't win, did he?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/harry-reid-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes-hes-still-not-sorry/

allegro
10-31-2016, 04:08 PM
Fucking with an election is bullshit. But Harry Reid leading the "Comey broke the law by using an official position to alter the election" bullhorn is laughable. He is the same guy who accused Romney of not paying taxes. When Reid was confronted about those allegations being false he said "well he didn't win, did he?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/harry-reid-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes-hes-still-not-sorry/

But Reid isn't the one who filed the Hatch Act complaint, so we really don't give a fuck what Reid says, he's retiring, anyway.

Comey violated the Hatch Act. That isn't "breaking the law" necessarily but it's violating the Hatch Act as a condition of your Federal Employment. The punishment would be a reprimand or loss of your job. We're not talking any "criminal" punishment, here.

The White House does not believe that Comey tried to influence the election (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/31/500071704/did-fbi-director-james-comeys-email-announcement-break-the-law).

DigitalChaos
10-31-2016, 04:32 PM
Ok sure. But Reid was the one getting headlines for making the statements against Comey. So it deserves a reminder about him.

Deepvoid
10-31-2016, 04:58 PM
Chuck Grassley, the Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the following to Comey: (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303647-gop-senator-calls-comeys-disclosure-unfair-to-clinton)

"Unfortunately, your letter failed to give Congress and the American people enough context to evaluate the significance or full meaning of this developmen.,"
"Without additional context, your disclosure is not fair to Congress, the American people, or Secretary Clinton."

DigitalChaos
10-31-2016, 06:03 PM
Chuck Grassley, the Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the following to Comey: (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303647-gop-senator-calls-comeys-disclosure-unfair-to-clinton)

"Unfortunately, your letter failed to give Congress and the American people enough context to evaluate the significance or full meaning of this developmen.,"
"Without additional context, your disclosure is not fair to Congress, the American people, or Secretary Clinton."


It's a shame Jon Stewart isn't doing the Daily Show right now.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161031/95d5ca409c1890e8888b388ec6186285.jpg

DigitalChaos
10-31-2016, 06:10 PM
allegro - I'll totally take your sarcastic punk bait :p

You are just mad that the punk generations from the last century died out by the time everyone hit 30. The crypto anarchists/cypher punks have taken hold with ideals that actually last well beyond 30. Shit, a household name who is in their late 40's is a crypto anarchist and single-handedly creating more impact on the world than any punk from last century has.

Shit's so punk that most people don't even know what a crypto anarchist or cypher punk even is. Yet, we have a strong influence on how the world runs. We have learned to use the laws that no authority can exclude themselves from: math.

Dra508
10-31-2016, 06:54 PM
Fucking with an election is bullshit. But Harry Reid leading the "Comey broke the law by using an official position to alter the election" bullhorn is laughable. He is the same guy who accused Romney of not paying taxes. When Reid was confronted about those allegations being false he said "well he didn't win, did he?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/harry-reid-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes-hes-still-not-sorry/That's called gamesmanship

allegro
10-31-2016, 10:22 PM
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote to 18 year olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971... before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven took 1 year or less to become the law of the land... all because of public pressure."

- Warren Buffet

Deepvoid
11-01-2016, 12:10 PM
Quick look at battleground states on RealClearPolitics.

Trump leads in Ohio, Iowa and Florida.
Virtual tie in Arizona and Nevada.

Trump needs to win Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and then either one of those: Colorado, Michigan or Pennsylvania.
That's his path to 270.

7 days left ...

allegate
11-01-2016, 12:29 PM
Was a Trump server communicating with Russia? (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_ communicating_with_russia.html)


This spring, a group of computer scientists set out to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign. They found something they weren’t expecting.


In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cyber-security firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump’s many servers. “We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,” says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work.





In late July, one of these scientists—who asked to be referred to as Tea Leaves, a pseudonym that would protect his relationship with the networks and banks that employ him to sift their data—found what looked like malware emanating from Russia. The destination domain had Trump in its name, which of course attracted Tea Leaves’ attention. But his discovery of the data was pure happenstance—a surprising needle in a large haystack of DNS lookups on his screen. “I have an outlier here that connects to Russia in a strange way,” he wrote in his notes. He couldn’t quite figure it out at first. But what he saw was a bank in Moscow that kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue.





The researchers quickly dismissed their initial fear that the logs represented a malware attack. The communication wasn’t the work of bots. The irregular pattern of server lookups actually resembled the pattern of human conversation—conversations that began during office hours in New York and continued during office hours in Moscow. It dawned on the researchers that this wasn’t an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank.





The researchers had initially stumbled in their diagnosis because of the odd configuration of Trump’s server. “I’ve never seen a server set up like that,” says Christopher Davis, who runs the cybersecurity firm HYAS InfoSec Inc, and won a FBI Director Award for Excellence for his work tracking down the authors one of the world’s nastiest botnet attacks.





That wasn’t the only oddity. When the researchers pinged the server, they received error messages. They concluded that the server was set to accept only incoming communication from a very small handful of IP addresses.





Earlier this month, the group of computer scientists passed the logs to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there’s no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the Internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, “The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.” Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence.





It’s possible to impute political motives to the computer scientists, some of whom have criticized Trump on social media. But many of the scientists who talked to me for this story are Republicans. And almost all have strong incentives for steering clear of controversy. Some work at public institutions, where they are vulnerable to political pressure. Others work for firms that rely on government contracts—a relationship that tends to squash positions that could be misinterpreted as outspoken.





To build out the bank, Fridman recruited a skilled economist and shrewd operator called Pyotr Aven. In the early nineties, Aven worked with Vladimir Putin in the St Petersburg government—and according to several accounts, helped Putin wiggle out of accusations of corruption that might have derailed his ascent. (Karen Dawisha recounts this history in her book, Putin’s Kleptocracy.) Over time, Alfa built one of the world’s most lucrative enterprises. Fridman became the second richest man in Russia, valued by Forbes at $15.3 billion.





Tea Leaves and his colleagues plotted the data from the logs on a timeline. What it illustrated was suggestive: The conversation between the Trump and Alfa servers appeared to follow the contours of political happenings in the United States. “At election related moments, the traffic peaked,” according to Camp. There were considerably more DNS lookups, for instance, during the two conventions.



http://www.slate.com/features/2016/10/frank/img/frank3.png


According to Vixie and others, the new host name may have represented an attempt to establish a new channel of communication. But media inquiries into the nature of Trump’s relationship with Alfa Bank, which suggested that their communications were being monitored, may have deterred the parties from using it. Soon after the New York Times began to ask questions, the traffic between the servers stopped cold.

theimage13
11-01-2016, 01:04 PM
Jesus fucking Christ. This should be a far, far bigger story than the Clinton emails right now.

DigitalChaos
11-01-2016, 01:57 PM
Was a Trump server communicating with Russia? (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_ communicating_with_russia.html)

Jesus fucking Christ. This should be a far, far bigger story than the Clinton emails right now.

... no. Just no. Nothing about this makes ANY technical sense. I can't believe Hillary decided to push this through her own twitter account.


http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/11/debunking-trumps-secret-server.html (this analysis has been heavily backed by the security industry, including people who fucking HATE Tump)

It's a spam server operated by a spam company on behalf of Trump's org. There is nothing secret about it. It's wide open to the world to see, but nobody decided to research it before posting the story. The failure here should be outright embarrassing. And are you kidding me with that graph? How does anyone look at that and not immediately ask what the author is smoking? That shit does NOT correlate. But that's a smaller point.

cashpiles (closed)
11-01-2016, 03:27 PM
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/Professor has correctly predicted president for past 30 years. he now predicts trump.

ziltoid
11-01-2016, 07:07 PM
As if I need more convincing to vote for third party (which won't change shit anyways).

Congrats, America: Hillary, Trump Could Both Be Criminally Charged After 2016 Election:

Trump, who in April of 2016 was named as the defendant in a lawsuit filed by Katie Johnson, is scheduled to appear before a court on December 16, 2016. The lawsuit alleges Trump, along with former banker billionaire and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, raped Johnson when she was thirteen. The incident allegedly happened in the 1990s...


In contrast to Trump’s case, Clinton’s brush with the law is taking place at a different, more advanced level — but is still not close enough to conviction to ruin her chances of being elected.

While the law “is hazy,” Blitzer writes, he goes over several scenarios. First, he explains “it’s highly unlikely that an indictment would come before November 8.” If it happened, however, “the indictment itself wouldn’t mean that Clinton could no longer run, as an indictment is only an accusation, not a conviction.” Theoretically, he continues, “the Electoral College could … go rogue and not vote for Clinton, even if their states tell them to.”
But if Clinton wins the election and is inaugurated as the investigation is carried on, “Clinton would luck out,” Blitzer explains, “due to the philosophy that Presidents — and only Presidents — [sic] are immune from prosecution while in office.” Since the House of Representatives determined in 1873 that a president may only be impeached over offenses committed after their inauguration, Blitzer writes, impeachment over the email scandal isn’t likely to take place. And even if she’s convicted after moving to the White House, “President Hillary Clinton could pardon herself.”
(http://theantimedia.org/hillary-trump-criminally-charged/)

orestes
11-01-2016, 08:19 PM
I am so sick of hearing about these fucking emails.

theimage13
11-01-2016, 08:52 PM
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/Professor has correctly predicted president for past 30 years. he now predicts trump.

Blah blah blah

He's called all of eight elections. They've had other stories about other people or groups who have called even more, and [choose your candidate] will win according to whichever source you choose to believe. This doesn't mean jack shit.

ziltoid
11-02-2016, 12:16 PM
A damn good song about the current election that is completely on point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP45LHZ_kIM

Dra508
11-02-2016, 03:21 PM
https://youtu.be/GEEgplXwNWk

When this happened, no one was thinking Trump would be where he is today.

allegate
11-02-2016, 05:19 PM
https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/teen-who-allegedly-got-weiner-sexts-upset-with-comey?utm_term=.mvwN7l0Gz#.yukpKlkJ3


Mr. James Comey
FBI Director
November 2, 2016



I am the 15-year-old (now 16) who was the victim of Anthony Weiner. I now add you to the list of people who have victimized me. I told my story originally to protect other young girls that might be a victim of online predators.



Your letter to Congress has now brought this whole matter back into the media spotlight. Not even 10 minutes after being forensically interviewed with the FBI for seven hours, I received a phone call from a REPORTER asking for a statement. Why didn’t you communicate with the local FBI agents that I had just spoken to? They could have scheduled our interview sooner or scheduled a time to interview me later, or change locations of the interview. My neighborhood has been canvassed by reporters asking for details about me.



In your letter, you chose to use a vague approach, meaning the media had to keep searching to try and find out what evidence you had uncovered and how. Every media outlet from local to national has contacted me and my family to get my “story.” Why couldn’t your letter have waited until after the election, so I would not have to be the center of attention the last week of the election cycle?



In his “cooperation” with you and with his love of the spotlight, Anthony Weiner has given information that led to the media finding me. You have assisted him in further victimizing me on every news outlet. I can only assume that you saw an opportunity for political propaganda.



I thought your job as FBI Director was to protect me. I thought if I cooperated with your investigation, my identity as a minor would be kept secret. That is no longer the case. My family and I are barraged by reporters’ phone calls and emails. I have been even been blamed in a newspaper for causing Donald Trump to now be leading in some polls and costing Hillary the election.



Anthony Weiner is the abuser. Your letter helped that abuse to continue. How can I rebuild my life when you have made finding out my “story” the goal of every reporter? When I meet with my therapist next time, she will already know what we are going to talk about before I get there by reading Friday, October 28th, 2016’s New York Times article.



I may have been Weiner’s victim, but the real story here is that I am a survivor. I am strong, intelligent, and certain that I will come out from under this nightmare, but it will not be as a result of your doing your job to protect me. I hope that by making my letter to you public, you will think about how your actions affect the victims of the crimes you are investigating. The election is important, yes, but what happened to me and how it makes me feel and how others see me, is much more important. It’s time that the FBI Director puts his victims’ rights above political views.



— Girl that lost her faith in America



P.S. To all reporters: AP, FOX, CBS, NBC, and all other media outlets, please respect my position and stop interrupting my life!

allegate
11-02-2016, 06:28 PM
Stolen from another board.
So, these image memes are making the rounds.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwRFxWzXYAAhp77.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwRFzRPWcAAfU4H.jpg
Well, if you don't know, you of course CAN'T vote by phone...
Apparently it's kosher to Twitter.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwREtPsW8AAgOZd.jpg

Source: https://twitter.com/mcnees/status/793836301141159936
Wow. The first one literally has "Trump" in the handle and there are idiots out there who will believe this.

DigitalChaos
11-02-2016, 06:54 PM
lol. Man, people who believe that shit probably have no business voting. I hate people.

allegro
11-02-2016, 07:06 PM
I've watched this at least six times and I still laugh every time. Gary Johnson is friggin hilarious

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x25eNZSrYgE

DigitalChaos
11-02-2016, 08:52 PM
From an open court. Fucking North Carolina.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161103/8941d7270bfa54ea2dce8ba92480601d.jpg

DigitalChaos
11-02-2016, 09:22 PM
I've watched this at least six times and I still laugh every time. Gary Johnson is friggin hilarious

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x25eNZSrYgE

dude is such a clown. I like him but his personality is more of an issue than his policy/platform, for most voters. Did you see his recent freakout?

Jump to 4:30:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4




And the fucked up thing is that the guy interviewing was wrong. Johnson is right. But that's lost when you act like Johnson did.

NPR's Planet Money said Johnson's economic plan is the best of the bunch. (http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/31/that-time-npr-said-gary-johnsons-economi)

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/26/499490275/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform
We assembled five prominent economists from across the political spectrum. We gave them a simple task: Identify major economic policies they could all stand behind. They did. They gave us five tax proposals, plus one change to the criminal code, that every one of them could support wholeheartedly, from left to right.

No candidates supported any of these policies, except Gary Johnson who supports 5 of 6 of the policies.

allegro
11-02-2016, 09:58 PM
dude is such a clown. I like him but his personality is more of an issue than his policy/platform, for most voters. Did you see his recent freakout?

Jump to 4:30:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4




And the fucked up thing is that the guy interviewing was wrong. Johnson is right. But that's lost when you act like Johnson did.

NPR's Planet Money said Johnson's economic plan is the best of the bunch. (http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/31/that-time-npr-said-gary-johnsons-economi)

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/26/499490275/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform
We assembled five prominent economists from across the political spectrum. We gave them a simple task: Identify major economic policies they could all stand behind. They did. They gave us five tax proposals, plus one change to the criminal code, that every one of them could support wholeheartedly, from left to right.

No candidates supported any of these policies, except Gary Johnson who supports 5 of 6 of the policies.

The thing is, people like you and I think that is normal behavior because we are nerds and it seems more than obvious that Johnson is a nerd, we aren't always socially adept, we are honest to a fault, etc. and what he says and does doesn't seem weird to me at all, he looks and sounds like all of our old friends.

Dra508
11-02-2016, 10:07 PM
Louis CK nailed it for me.
https://youtu.be/MFOkBnYGfIM

niggo
11-03-2016, 04:56 AM
Wish I hadn't read the comments.

Deepvoid
11-03-2016, 08:52 AM
Are you guys starting to sweat bullets?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I'm looking at Donald's path to 270. Crazy how it looked totally impossible 2 weeks ago and now, he's basically two states away (N.H. & N.C.) from getting 270.

theruiner
11-03-2016, 09:11 AM
Are you guys starting to sweat bullets?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I'm looking at Donald's path to 270. Crazy how it looked totally impossible 2 weeks ago and now, he's basically two states away (N.H. & N.C.) from getting 270.

It's scary. I keep thinking about how this asshole is going on trial in a month for raping a 13 year old and half this country thinks he's totally qualified to be president.

I thought about taking the day off after election day so I could stay up late and watch the coverage and I decided not to. Now I wish I had put in my request, but it's too late now. I work super early so I'll be in bed at 7:00. But you'd better bet when I get up to pee in the middle of the night I am going to check my phone before I go back to sleep to see what happened.

onthewall2983
11-03-2016, 10:32 AM
Reuters has Hillary ahead (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKBN12X211)

Swykk
11-03-2016, 10:33 AM
I know I've said it before, but it's scarier for me to have Trump elected and then impeached, leaving the country in Mike Pence's hands. He will make America 1953 again. He's way worse than Trump because he's tea party AND "plays the game" better than Trump does. Civil rights and education, just to name two things he's fucked up in Indiana, will become fucked up nationwide.

implanted_microchip
11-03-2016, 10:49 AM
I know I've said it before, but it's scarier for me to have Trump elected and then impeached, leaving the country in Mike Pence's hands. He will make America 1953 again. He's way worse than Trump because he's tea party AND "plays the game" better than Trump does. Civil rights and education, just to name two things he's fucked up in Indiana, will become fucked up nationwide.

Don't forget that, as per Kasich's campaign staff, Trump is letting the VP handle "donestic and foreign policy," so basically all of what a POTUS does. Trump = Pence no matter which way this goes and Pence is a terrifying suit of a man.

cashpiles (closed)
11-03-2016, 11:18 AM
"Going back to World War Two, the S&P 500 performance between July 31 and Oct. 31 has accurately predicted" the winner of the election 86 percent of the time. This time, it predicts Trump. Yet another forecasting pattern in Trump's favor.

allegate
11-03-2016, 11:20 AM
From an open court. Fucking North Carolina.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161103/8941d7270bfa54ea2dce8ba92480601d.jpg Jesus on a pogo stick.

Deepvoid
11-03-2016, 02:27 PM
"Going back to World War Two, the S&P 500 performance between July 31 and Oct. 31 has accurately predicted" the winner of the election 86 percent of the time. This time, it predicts Trump. Yet another forecasting pattern in Trump's favor.

Moody's Analytics is predicting Clinton and they've been right since 1980.

allegate
11-03-2016, 02:49 PM
If the Cubs can end their streak, all these other streaks can end as well.

Dra508
11-03-2016, 05:20 PM
I early voted today. The place was empty. The election workers, of which there was plenty, were gobsmacked how empty it was, telling me that last week they were slammed. Tomorrow is the last day to early vote, no voting on Monday then Tuesday is IT.

Being in Texas, reading that early voters are pretty much set in their ways, I'm not feeling like Texas is even going to move the needle toward HRC.

So, I'm just down here spitting in the wind. :\

DigitalChaos
11-03-2016, 06:10 PM
Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek​ says he would opt for Donald Trump as the apparently less dangerous choice in the US election.

https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/794232437337247744

Khrz
11-03-2016, 06:41 PM
That's hardly surprising. The guy loathes everything resembling "order" and would think of a civil war as a festive and healthy activity.

Edgy philosophers are good in the broader context of philosophy, their stir things up a bit. Isolated they're still full of shit. They're fun though.

allegro
11-03-2016, 07:33 PM
I early voted today. The place was empty. The election workers, of which there was plenty, were gobsmacked how empty it was, telling me that last week they were slammed. Tomorrow is the last day to early vote, no voting on Monday then Tuesday is IT.
G and I voted this afternoon; we had to wait in line for about 15 minutes. Last week, there were lines out the door and cops directing traffic.

orestes
11-03-2016, 07:34 PM
I early voted today. The place was empty. The election workers, of which there was plenty, were gobsmacked how empty it was, telling me that last week they were slammed. Tomorrow is the last day to early vote, no voting on Monday then Tuesday is IT.

Being in Texas, reading that early voters are pretty much set in their ways, I'm not feeling like Texas is even going to move the needle toward HRC.

So, I'm just down here spitting in the wind. :\

I voted early last week and it was the complete opposite. In fact, the entire process was ridiculous, if I'm being honest, but I blame the location. The entire process, from queuing to placing my electronic vote took a good two hours, most of which was spent waiting in line. The waiting was a given and expected but once I got inside the room to vote, I saw why things were moving slow. I don't recall if I had to fill out any paperwork in 2008 but the first thing myself and about a dozen other people in line had to do was sit at a table and fill out an Early Vote Request form with our personal info and show ID to the election volunteer. Afterwards, I waited in another line for the *two* staff members looking up voter info on their laptops. They had to write down your precinct number on the above mentioned form so it can be keyed into the electronic ballot booth. The actual voting only took two minutes at the most, since I had read up on the ballot initiatives beforehand. The booth volunteer was a bit shocked I finished so quickly when I asked for my sticker, heh.

allegro
11-03-2016, 07:41 PM
Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek​ says he would opt for Donald Trump as the apparently less dangerous choice in the US election.

https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/794232437337247744

This shit cracks me up, though. Trump's number one agenda is to increase our military and our nuclear arms, and the guy is a loose canon who gets pissed at anybody who disagrees with him and then we know his next step will be to blow them up. He said we didn't blow up Iraq well enough during Desert Storm. People have some mistaken impression that he's less of a hawk than Hillary but that's nuts. Looking at this Slovenian talking about what will supposedly happen if Trump wins, it is painfully obvious that the guy has NO idea how American politics works ... OR THE ECONOMY.

I know that my husband and his buddies are trading their investments into REALLY conservative funds right now just in case there is a Trump win which is predicted to bring a stock market crash.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/business/dealbook/what-happens-to-the-markets-if-donald-trump-wins.html

allegro
11-03-2016, 07:58 PM
I voted early last week and it was the complete opposite. In fact, the entire process was ridiculous, if I'm being honest, but I blame the location. The entire process, from queuing to placing my electronic vote took a good two hours, most of which was spent waiting in line. The waiting was a given and expected but once I got inside the room to vote, I saw why things were moving slow. I don't recall if I had to fill out any paperwork in 2008 but the first thing myself and about a dozen other people in line had to do was sit at a table and fill out an Early Vote Request form with our personal info and show ID to the election volunteer. Afterwards, I waited in another line for the *two* staff members looking up voter info on their laptops. They had to write down your precinct number on the above mentioned form so it can be keyed into the electronic ballot booth. The actual voting only took two minutes at the most, since I had read up on the ballot initiatives beforehand. The booth volunteer was a bit shocked I finished so quickly when I asked for my sticker, heh.
I don't even understand how this shit is legal, it seems like voter suppression tactics. We went up to an election judge, gave them our name and address, they looked us up on the computer, handed us a slip that looked like a grocery store receipt, asked us to look at it and verify our name and address on the slip, then we had to sign the slip and the election judge verified the signature against the one they had on file in the computer. Then they initialed that slip and told us to go to a table where another election judge handed us a paper ballot and explained that there was a proposition on the ballot that required a Yes or No, and that the ballot had two sides, told us to be sure to fill in the circle completely with a pen then feed it into the machine.

And this is always the process.

DigitalChaos
11-03-2016, 08:10 PM
CBS News confirms FBI found emails on Weiner's computer, related to Hillary Clinton server, that are "new" & not previously reviewed.

allegro
11-03-2016, 08:11 PM
CBS News confirms FBI found emails on Weiner's computer, related to Hillary Clinton server, that are "new" & not previously reviewed.

Meh who cares.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/756957?section=US&keywords=new-emails-Weiner-laptop&year=2016&month=11&date=03&id=756957&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main&oref=www.google.com


But the FBI does not know whether the emails are significant to their investigation, nor how many relevant documents exist, the official said

orestes
11-03-2016, 08:13 PM
It's definitely suppression tactics having to show ID, otherwise, one would have to fill out a provisional ballot.

DigitalChaos
11-03-2016, 08:22 PM
That's hardly surprising. The guy loathes everything resembling "order" and would think of a civil war as a festive and healthy activity.

Edgy philosophers are good in the broader context of philosophy, their stir things up a bit. Isolated they're still full of shit. They're fun though.


This shit cracks me up, though. Trump's number one agenda is to increase our military and our nuclear arms, and the guy is a loose canon who gets pissed at anybody who disagrees with him and then we know his next step will be to blow them up. He said we didn't blow up Iraq well enough during Desert Storm. People have some mistaken impression that he's less of a hawk than Hillary but that's nuts. Looking at this Slovenian talking about what will supposedly happen if Trump wins, it is painfully obvious that the guy has NO idea how American politics works ... OR THE ECONOMY.


Of course. His statement was very specific though. It's about the danger of the "coalition" that Hillary has. If you think that happens to be a huge threat, and you believe that Trump isn't part of that... then yeah he has a point.

Zizek is always interesting. I agree with him on some stuff, of course :)

DigitalChaos
11-03-2016, 08:26 PM
Meh who cares.


Enough people for this to have an impact on the polls.

When Jill Stein has more votes than the delta between Hillary and Trump, even little things matter.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161104/835a2970881019afddf606756fd2d294.jpg

allegro
11-03-2016, 08:55 PM
Of course. His statement was very specific though. It's about the danger of the "coalition" that Hillary has. If you think that happens to be a huge threat, and you believe that Trump isn't part of that... then yeah he has a point.

The thing is, both Clinton AND Trump are part of the SAME "coalition." The ONLY thing that really makes them different is social interests (publicly, anyway). NEITHER of them are REALLY going to risk one fucking cent of their own money. Trump is just as in bed with Wall Street as Hillary. All of his clients are in "the system," he is at the very top of "the system" claiming he isn't in the system because he games the system but they all game the system too.

Those who believe Trump isn't a part of that are STUPID.

DigitalChaos
11-03-2016, 09:11 PM
Oh I agree! I think there is at least a mild chance he is truly detached from that. But he will quickly get pulled in if he isn't already in. All Trump ever wants, throughout his life, is to be included in the elite circles. He hates the fact that he is frequently the outsider.

allegro
11-03-2016, 09:17 PM
Enough people for this to have an impact on the polls

Have you seen the "science" behind these modern polls? Land lines so it's a too-small sampling consisting almost entirely of old people?

Dra508
11-03-2016, 09:18 PM
I don't even understand how this shit is legal, it seems like voter suppression tactics. We went up to an election judge, gave them our name and address, they looked us up on the computer, handed us a slip that looked like a grocery store receipt, asked us to look at it and verify our name and address on the slip, then we had to sign the slip and the election judge verified the signature against the one they had on file in the computer. Then they initialed that slip and told us to go to a table where another election judge handed us a paper ballot and explained that there was a proposition on the ballot that required a Yes or No, and that the ballot had two sides, told us to be sure to fill in the circle completely with a pen then feed it into the machine.

And this is always the process.

I agree. orestes polling experience sounds seriously shady.

@allergro, your experience is virtually the same as mine except I got the electronic voting card which is not my experience in the past so a bit unsettling. Of the four pages of choices, all but president were judges. WTF?!

Back in Massachusetts, there is no electing judges. Heck, the Sheriff is the only elected and all they do is run the county jails.

This country is whack. Well. Not entirely because I can say that without fear of getting carted off by the gestapo.

Dra508
11-03-2016, 09:26 PM
I know I've said it before, but it's scarier for me to have Trump elected and then impeached, leaving the country in Mike Pence's hands. He will make America 1953 again. He's way worse than Trump because he's tea party AND "plays the game" better than Trump does. Civil rights and education, just to name two things he's fucked up in Indiana, will become fucked up nationwide.

This Hoosier is my hero.

http://motto.time.com/4556239/mike-pence-periods-laura-shanley

allegro
11-03-2016, 09:58 PM
I agree. orestes polling experience sounds seriously shady.

@allergro, your experience is virtually the same as mine except I got the electronic voting card which is not my experience in the past so a bit unsettling. Of the four pages of choices, all but president were judges. WTF?
We used to have cards that we fed into the machines but they constantly jammed up so I think that is why we went with this big scantron sheet instead this time. 3/4 of the back page of ours were retention of judges and OF COURSE I VOTED NOOOOOOO TO ALL OF THEM. WE SHOULD NOT BE ELECTING JUDGES.

I used to be able to vote in MI in one of those voting machines where you pulled levers, and I used to vote straight Democratic ticket by pulling one lever then I'd leave but I haven't seen one of those in AGES.

orestes
11-03-2016, 10:20 PM
I don't think I've seen those particular voting machines since the 80s!

Jinsai
11-03-2016, 10:21 PM
The thing is, people like you and I think that is normal behavior because we are nerds and it seems more than obvious that Johnson is a nerd, we aren't always socially adept, we are honest to a fault, etc. and what he says and does doesn't seem weird to me at all, he looks and sounds like all of our old friends.


You can't have someone who telegraphs like this as your candidate. Also, don't act like you're fucking MLK Jr just because you came out in favor of legalizing pot, and by the way, what the hell was with that non sequitur? I've had socially awkward people around me my whole life, and I think it's fair to play armchair shrink and say that this guy falls somewhere on the spectrum. He doesn't understand the way he comes across. I know we're talking about thinking outside the two-party box, but the libertarians will get nowhere with this guy carrying their banner. This is the first time he's stumbled onto the prime-time stage, and it's pretty apparent he isn't ready for prime time. Johnson's clownish gaffes are really cringe-inducing. If this is the best candidate the libertarians have right now, in a time where the republican party is will to jump ship, they are totally shitting the bed.

allegro
11-03-2016, 10:38 PM
You can't have someone who telegraphs like this as your candidate. Also, don't act like you're fucking MLK Jr just because you came out in favor of legalizing pot, and by the way, what the hell was with that non sequitur? I've had socially awkward people around me my whole life, and I think it's fair to play armchair shrink and say that this guy falls somewhere on the spectrum. He doesn't understand the way he comes across. I know we're talking about thinking outside the two-party box, but the libertarians will get nowhere with this guy carrying their banner. This is the first time he's stumbled onto the prime-time stage, and it's pretty apparent he isn't ready for prime time. Johnson's clownish gaffes are really cringe-inducing. If this is the best candidate the libertarians have right now, in a time where the republican party is will to jump ship, they are totally shitting the bed.

Oh I totally agree with you that he is not Presidential material. But he certainly could be valuable in, say, Congress? Yeah, he does present maybe a little too awkward. I just meant that people are acting like he is some kind of crazy weirdo and I'm not groking that, nor do I think his losing his patience is that big of a deal when press people ask dumb questions. Kasich has done this shit for most of his career.

allegro
11-03-2016, 11:00 PM
I don't think I've seen those particular voting machines since the 80s!

I guess the the last state to use the lever machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machine#Non-document-based_ballot_voting_systems) was the State of New York (in some areas) (https://www.elections.ny.gov/machine-lever-avm.html), they took them out of commission after the 2008 election.
http://alloveralbany.com/images/lever_voting_machine.jpg

orestes
11-03-2016, 11:24 PM
2008, seriously? I don't know which is worse, this or the fact the state doesn't have early voting.

Ugh, this is giving me a headache.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iphiBpgZBM&spfreload=10

WorzelG
11-04-2016, 04:08 AM
I keep seeing Lena Dunham plugged on Twitter. Does she really think this will help Hillary's chances?
http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/lena-dunham-releases-hillary-clinton-psa-parody.html?mid=twitter_vulture

hellospaceboy
11-04-2016, 08:55 AM
Have you seen the "science" behind these modern polls? Land lines so it's a too-small sampling consisting almost entirely of old people?

Actually... while I'm not an expert at all, I did take a statistics college class and the thing about polling is that the science is really good (if done properly). Polling is a huge business, and they literally have it down to science, from the sample size they need to get the most accurate results to the way to gather the data, everything. Just like in 2012, the polls were not skewed, they were correct, it's just that people on the right didn't like what they showed. And while I HATE that now they're showing a frighteningly tight race, I'm pretty sure they're reasonably reflect that's out there.

What's NOT science about polling is when people try to factor in bullshit to serve their interest, like looking for "hidden, shy Trump voters who are embarrassed to admit their vote" to crowd sizes at rallies, and, of course, "old people with landline".

It's never before been easier to collect real data about people.

allegro
11-04-2016, 10:24 AM
Actually... while I'm not an expert at all, I did take a statistics college class and the thing about polling is that the science is really good (if done properly). Polling is a huge business, and they literally have it down to science, from the sample size they need to get the most accurate results to the way to gather the data, everything. Just like in 2012, the polls were not skewed, they were correct, it's just that people on the right didn't like what they showed. And while I HATE that now they're showing a frighteningly tight race, I'm pretty sure they're reasonably reflect that's out there.

What's NOT science about polling is when people try to factor in bullshit to serve their interest, like looking for "hidden, shy Trump voters who are embarrassed to admit their vote" to crowd sizes at rallies, and, of course, "old people with landline".

It's never before been easier to collect real data about people.
I will try to find the article that said that even since 2012, they have far fewer people with land lines, that they only call people on land lines, not cell phones, and that group is greatly dwindling and is a group that is populated primarily by seniors. Your caveat "if done properly" is KEY.

edit: Here is one of the articles I have seen (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html). Here is another one (http://theweek.com/articles/617109/problem-polls). Here is another one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/landline-only-polls-huffpost-pollster_us_579f9b2ae4b08a8e8b5ee65e).

Also, the main poll data you are seeing is combined poll data. Go look at each poll; some have the sample size of as low as 1200.

We also have to take into consideration that an estimated 35% of Americans have ALREADY VOTED.

What is going to be important, here, of course, as always, is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

The winner needs 270 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html).

allegate
11-04-2016, 11:23 AM
WTF is this election even about anymore.

RNC to judge: Pence doesn’t know what he’s talking about (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rnc-judge-pence-doesnt-know-what-hes-talking-about)

Yeah, I know, Rachel Maddow. But the information stands:
Mike Pence declared confidently over the summer that the Trump campaign would be working hand-in-glove with the Republican National Committee to prevent voter fraud. Now, in a court filing, the GOP’s vice presidential nominee says he misspoke.

After facing a legal threat from Democrats, Pence and the RNC are disavowing his comments, with both insisting that the RNC has no role whatsoever in the Trump camp’s ballot security operation.

hellospaceboy
11-04-2016, 12:23 PM
some have the sample size of as low as 1200.



Fun fact: sample size 800-1200 is actually accurate. Increasing the sample size beyond that point will not increase its accuracy. At least that's what they taught me on Statistics.

DigitalChaos
11-04-2016, 12:25 PM
538: Trump is now just a normal polling error behind Clinton

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/


And yeah, polls are generally shit. And it's only representative of the popular vote that's worth almost nothing. But some groups, like 538, have analysis that tends to be quite accurate.

DigitalChaos
11-04-2016, 12:31 PM
Jinsai - that's what most of the libertarians have been saying. Like, word for word. There were better choices, but Johnson was viewed as the moderate who would carry the message to more people. He also had political experience by being governor. His choice with Bill Weld is much more damaging than his own personality, though. Johnson would make a good member of Congress, as allegro said.

allegro
11-04-2016, 12:37 PM
Fun fact: sample size 800-1200 is actually accurate. Increasing the sample size beyond that point will not increase its accuracy. At least that's what they taught me on Statistics.

That's not what they taught us in Marketing (I worked in Marketing for many years); you need a formula (https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/determining-sample-size/), not just an arbitrary sample number. See those articles I linked as to why the polls can be really skewed by dishonest answers, see the interviews with people who are in the business of polling in the links.


The other big problem with election polling, though not a new one, is that survey respondents overstate their likelihood of voting. It is not uncommon for 60 percent to report that they definitely plan to vote in an election in which only 40 percent will actually turn out. Pollsters have to guess, in effect, who will actually vote, and organizations construct “likely voter” scales from respondents’ answers to maybe half a dozen questions, including how interested they are in the election, how much they care who wins, their past voting history and their reported likelihood of voting in this particular election. Unfortunately, research shows there is no single magic-bullet question or set of questions to correctly predict who will vote, leaving different polling organizations with different models of who will turn out.

This has become a bigger problem lately. Scott Keeter, a former colleague of mine who is now the director of survey research at Pew, told me that “as coverage has shrunk and nonresponse has grown, forecasting who will turn out has become more difficult, especially in sub-presidential elections. So accuracy in polling slowly shifts from science to art.”

The problem here of course is that actual turnout is unknown until the election is over. An overestimation of turnout is likely to be one of the reasons the 2014 polling underestimated Republican strength. Turnout in that midterm election was the lowest since World War II; fewer than 40 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. Since Democrats are on average less well educated and less affluent than Republicans, and less likely to vote, a low turnout would be disproportionately Republican, as fewer occasional voters (who are disproportionately Democratic) participated. And of course we don’t know what to expect for the general election in 2016.

Like DigitalChaos said, ultimately the popular vote doesn't mean shit. The Electoral College is everything.

onthewall2983
11-04-2016, 01:04 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwYqrZhWEAA9WZi.jpg:large

hellospaceboy
11-04-2016, 01:10 PM
That's not what they taught us in Marketing (I worked in Marketing for many years); you need a formula (https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/determining-sample-size/), not just an arbitrary sample number. See those articles I linked as to why the polls can be really skewed by dishonest answers, see the interviews with people who are in the business of polling in the links.

Here's a good article about the statistics of polling: http://www.pollingreport.com/ncpp.htm

The articles you linked were good, they talked about the difficulties of getting a RANDOM sample of likely voters via landline, which sounds like a real complaint, and yes, manually calling cell numbers is more time consuming (so more expensive). But they do know how to draw accurate polls, that's all I'm saying, the science of polling is solid.

There has to be polls that are state-specific, and from those one could get a decent electoral college prediction. I'm sure it exists, I can't be the first one to think of that :)

On other news, I got called in to work Tuesday, but I was emotionally ready for an all day drunk-fest of watching the polls. The truth is, I love election seasons and I love watching the circus, even if its' really stressful with real stakes.

allegro
11-04-2016, 01:18 PM
There has to be polls that are state-specific, and from those one could get a decent electoral college prediction. I'm sure it exists, I can't be the first one to think of that :)
Bingo, there is that data, and I think they base it mostly on exit data from early voting, actually.

I love good old-fashioned Election Night, myself. My husband and I have a tradition of making Sloppy Joes for dinner (it's also our dinner for decorating the Christmas tree, it's easy to make) and we drink bubbly and we're glued to MSNBC all night. THIS ONE WILL BE FUCKING EPIC!!!!

OPTION THREE OF THESE MAPS IS SOME CRAZY SHIT!! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/02/4-electoral-maps-where-donald-trump-wins/)


3. Trump 269, Clinton 269

Yes, this could actually happen. The map [below] gives Trump wins in five states President Obama carried in 2012: Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio. It also assumes that Maine and Nebraska — both of which award their electoral votes by congressional district — cancel one another out. (Trump could win Maine’s 2nd District; Clinton could win Nebraska’s 2nd District.)

If this map actually came to pass, the election would go to Congress, where each state would get a single vote — a scenario that would almost certainly elect Trump.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/11/Screen-Shot-2016-11-02-at-9.31.19-AM.png&w=1484

hellospaceboy
11-04-2016, 01:26 PM
^^^
oh god, please no, not that

allegate
11-04-2016, 04:49 PM
Judge issues restraining order against Trump campaign over voter-harassment fears (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-judge-to-trump-campaign-no-you-can-t-1478284503-htmlstory.html)

Key words:

A judge in Cleveland on Friday issued a temporary restraining order against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign and a GOP political operative, preventing them from harassing or intimidating Ohio voters.

cashpiles (closed)
11-04-2016, 06:50 PM
I've signed up to a Canadian gambling site that's part of the British Columbia Lottery Gaming Commission and it will allow me to bet on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. I am seriously considering betting 300 dollars on Trump.

theimage13
11-04-2016, 07:26 PM
I've signed up to a Canadian gambling site that's part of the British Columbia Lottery Gaming Commission and it will allow me to bet on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. I am seriously considering betting 300 dollars on Trump.

Do it. It's a win-win.

Trump wins: you get a nice bonus.

Trump loses: $300? Who cares. You're still a winner.

Dra508
11-04-2016, 09:16 PM
I guess the the last state to use the lever machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machine#Non-document-based_ballot_voting_systems) was the State of New York (in some areas) (https://www.elections.ny.gov/machine-lever-avm.html), they took them out of commission after the 2008 election.
http://alloveralbany.com/images/lever_voting_machine.jpg

Yup, that was my youth, right there. Every city, state, federal election, my mum would drag me and my brothers to the polls at the junior high school on 93rd street and into one of those machines. It's was a fight every time who would get to pull the arm that closed the curtain. Good times.

bobbie solo
11-05-2016, 01:34 AM
pulling the big, final red lever was an epic feeling.

sick among the pure
11-05-2016, 02:13 AM
I guess the the last state to use the lever machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machine#Non-document-based_ballot_voting_systems) was the State of New York (in some areas) (https://www.elections.ny.gov/machine-lever-avm.html), they took them out of commission after the 2008 election.
http://alloveralbany.com/images/lever_voting_machine.jpg


Yep, we had them in 2008. 2012 I was at college and unable to vote in person, so I just assumed they still used them until I showed up for the primaries and got a paper ballot.

theimage13
11-05-2016, 07:14 AM
I guess the the last state to use the lever machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machine#Non-document-based_ballot_voting_systems) was the State of New York (in some areas) (https://www.elections.ny.gov/machine-lever-avm.html), they took them out of commission after the 2008 election.
http://alloveralbany.com/images/lever_voting_machine.jpg

Oh shit, those aren't our machines anymore??

2008 was the last election I was actually home for; everything since has been done via absentee. I was actually looking forward to seeing that machine again next week. Laaaaaame. So what is it now?

WorzelG
11-05-2016, 08:54 AM
^^^don't those machines mean people can see your vote? I hate that idea. I think voting should be private

theimage13
11-05-2016, 09:44 AM
^^^don't those machines mean people can see your vote? I hate that idea. I think voting should be private

...no, they don't. The entire point of the machine is to make it private.

You step in and pull the curtain behind you. No one in there but you. It's a blank slate. You cast your votes and pull a lever to record them. Machine face resets to blank; curtain opens. You're the only one in the world who knows how you cast your ballot.

Jinsai
11-05-2016, 02:11 PM
I've signed up to a Canadian gambling site that's part of the British Columbia Lottery Gaming Commission and it will allow me to bet on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. I am seriously considering betting 300 dollars on Trump.

Do you live in Los Angeles? Are you the person I just bet with? If so, I'm happy to take your money.

Also, never seen one of those machines before. I've always had the little book with the pen... or something like that. Nothing so epic as a curtain and a giant lever.

Jinsai
11-05-2016, 02:25 PM
What's NOT science about polling is when people try to factor in bullshit to serve their interest, like looking for "hidden, shy Trump voters who are embarrassed to admit their vote" to crowd sizes at rallies, and, of course, "old people with landline".

The thing is, it's not total bullshit, and it's definitely not a concern emanating from personal interest. I believe in polls, but sometimes they're wrong, and it's because of "bullshit" like that. If Trump wins, it will be for that exact reason: there's a lot of people out there silently eager to vote for him.

Either that... or Jill Stein will throw Trump New Hampshire or something.

cashpiles (closed)
11-05-2016, 02:57 PM
Do you live in Los Angeles? Are you the person I just bet with? If so, I'm happy to take your money.

It wasn't me, Jinsai... What are the odds on Hillary where you are? In BC, the payout for a 300 dollar wager on Trump is 800 dollars.

Jinsai
11-05-2016, 03:18 PM
some guy bet me $300 one to one odds that Trump was going to win. If I lose, I'll have bigger things to worry about.

Jinsai
11-05-2016, 05:46 PM
in other distracting news that has nothing distressing and stressful about it, this was my Halloween costume.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14732392_10157686775250564_5935188353964221023_n.j pg?oh=14ee3c268c76c0de64e4290bbdd1ed4d&oe=5899E92D

DigitalChaos
11-05-2016, 07:24 PM
So, John McAfee has continued making campaign videos. They are great. His final one reminds me a lot of that great Michael Moore clip that was going around (in ziltoid's post below).




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etppMdmU9OA

The "be a Libertarian" is quite a failed punctuation though. They could have at least used little-l libertarian... or something much less tarnished from it's fundamentals.




Has anyone here seen the new Micheal Moore documentary Trumpland?
I just came across this clip, which is an excerpt that ends abruptly, of the film and it's got me intrigued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc

Edit:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/26/michael-moore-trumpland-review-conservatives/

(http://fortune.com/2016/10/26/michael-moore-trumpland-review-conservatives/)

DigitalChaos
11-05-2016, 07:38 PM
jesus christ this one is the best.
Pretend 4:17-5:17 were cut from the video...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAjl-Gibm8c

hellospaceboy
11-05-2016, 10:06 PM
On a side notes, why is Michael Moore so whitetrash looking lately? Not to be rude, but what's up with that hair and, you know, general presentation?!

allegro
11-05-2016, 10:29 PM
On a side notes, why is Michael Moore so whitetrash looking lately? Not to be rude, but what's up with that hair and, you know, general presentation?!
I was thinking the same thing!!! The mullet, the bad oral health thing, the overall appearance is just Midwest Redneck, ugh.

Jinsai
11-05-2016, 11:22 PM
So, John McAfee has continued making campaign videos. They are great. His final one reminds me a lot of that great Michael Moore clip that was going around (in ziltoid's post below).




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etppMdmU9OA

The "be a Libertarian" is quite a failed punctuation though. They could have at least used little-l libertarian... or something much less tarnished from it's fundamentals.
I like McAfee but this is too silly. Cool song.

DigitalChaos
11-06-2016, 01:50 AM
Well I thought they were good! :o

His VP produced the videos.

Harry Seaward
11-06-2016, 05:43 AM
I just watched the (great) Bill Maher Obama interview. Man, Obama is way smarter than I am. Way smarter than anybody I know. Smarter, which is different than more knowledgeable (which he also is) - these are two separate things. He was a Constitutional law professor who graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. Not my favorite President. Smart guy.

Donald Trump is a shitty businessman and a reality TV star. Donald Trump is absolutely less intelligent than I am. He's less intelligent than quite a few people I know. This is easily observable to anybody watching.

There should never, EVER be a US President less intelligent than I am. Ever. The bar should be MUCH higher than that. Politics and policy aside, that should be enough of a clear cut indicator to anybody of any ideology of Trump's inadequacy and inability and incompetence and lack of qualification is more than enough to have never ever ever even had considered him.

Being controversial and "telling it like it is" is not really an admirable trait when you’re, you know, an adult. Anybody can get on a stage and say a bunch of 'good ole boy' bullshit, especially when you're held to no standards whatsoever. Adults tend to apply nuance to, and think about, the things they say. Donald Trump's behavior is the *definition* of being a politician. Day after day, blowing smoke up his followers' asses, with obviously no plan to accomplish most things he says and no intention to accomplish the rest.

He's a snake oil salesmen and even with as little respect and hope I had for the American people, I still expected more for some reason. Even if we don't elect him, I don't know if I can recover from what a profound effect his rise to fame has had on me, in the context of how I view (most of) my fellow Americans. I thought I grew out of the teenage (or so I thought) viewpoint of perceiving (again, most) Americans as low, slimy, ugly, worthless sacks of vitriol. I suppose my contempt and disgust and hatred for these people, who ARE objectively below me in the measure of human worth, isn't going away anytime soon. I thought I was just a cynic. I thought I was getting a biased view of these people. I thought 'maybe they’re actually good people, but just confused or uneducated.' Well it seems my disdain was completely justified, I've really been blown away throughout all of this.

Oh well. I'll still support their right to free speech, no matter how fascist. Their right to practice their religion, no matter how archaic it is and how far opposed it is from everything I stand for. Their right to retain control over their own reproduction and who they marry, even if their choice is a nuclear family and a white picket fence, even if I think that’s the least ideal life a person could choose. Their freedom to enjoy any substance they want to put into their bodies, even if it’s a drug I would never touch or think is evil. Their protection from being killed by the state or the right to end their own life if that's their decision. And all the other rights I think a human should have. Rights that, in an ideal world, these people would also protect for me. An ideal world.

To be honest, this post kinda ran away from me. I mostly just wanted to quickly post about the Obama interview that I thought was neat, so I’m not really sure how to end this word vomit effectively. I guess I’ll use the special occasion of the election being in two days to say something nice about the candidate I plan to vote for and just throw in that I also think Hillary is way smarter than me too. Even for a woman!

allegro
11-06-2016, 09:57 AM
Even for a woman!
Okay, I'll assume that is sarcasm. :p

Her IQ is said to be higher than Bill Clinton's, and Bill was a Rhodes scholar. Obama is definitely smarter than both of them, though.

Dra508
11-06-2016, 10:54 AM
538: Trump is now just a normal polling error behind Clinton

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/


And yeah, polls are generally shit. And it's only representative of the popular vote that's worth almost nothing. But some groups, like 538, have analysis that tends to be quite accurate.Nate Silver is getting and giving grief for this one.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffington-post-polls-twitter-230815

ziltoid
11-06-2016, 11:03 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA
I really wish he was still around to hear his thoughts on this election and his thoughts on Trump.
His way of disseminating bullshit was epic and unrivaled. He had a lot of pull to possibly make people think more rationally and see things in a different perspective.
Hell, it could have been possible for him to change his mind on what he said in that clip because of how politics has changed over the years, though I highly doubt it.
I guess there is no sense trying to be nostalgic about it.

Mantra
11-06-2016, 12:19 PM
so apparently Trump uses the theme music from the Air Force One movie as the soundtrack for his helicopter arrival at campaign stops.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s827elGwbZs

lol

DigitalChaos
11-06-2016, 03:54 PM
Man. I would be fucking mortified if I were the pilot.

DigitalChaos
11-06-2016, 03:58 PM
FBI Director: "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Sec Clinton"

But hey. 2 more days. It's not like that email thing will completely die now. What next? Email leak from FBI officials who were investigating Hillary?

DigitalChaos
11-06-2016, 04:04 PM
And this story is perfect. There are reports that Trump had his Twitter access revoked by his aides. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304573-report-trump-aides-take-away-his-personal-twitter

DigitalChaos
11-06-2016, 04:06 PM
I'm sad that we only have 2 days left. This drama should go on for another year.

hellospaceboy
11-06-2016, 04:13 PM
I'm sad that we only have 2 days left. This drama should go on for another year.

It probably will go on for years

Harry Seaward
11-06-2016, 04:29 PM
I'm sad that we only have 2 days left. This drama should go on for another year.

I'm really not hopeful that Trump will gracefully concede. Gore fought a few counties in one state and that extended the formal "end" to the election to a month after voting day. If Trump truly sincerely contested several states/jurisdictions using the legal avenues available, I feel like he could genuinely prolong this election for several months.

However, I am not a lawyer. Constitutional/election law is not my strong suit. Is there anybody here who is legitimately knowledgeable in this area that can definitively say what it's possible for Trump to do if he really wants to put all of his time and resources into fighting what happens? I'm strictly speaking about what he might do legally and above-board. I'm not even considering what could happen if he truly calls upon his base to... I don't know, revolt? *shudder *

DigitalChaos
11-06-2016, 04:44 PM
If it's like the rest our legal system, you don't have to have a decent case. You just need money. Money lets you tie up anything in the legal system as long as you want.

But maybe it would be a good thing if Trump did that. It would stave off a legit revolt by giving those people a "last hope" and allowing them to acclimate to Hillary.

allegro
11-06-2016, 06:08 PM
Gore was fully ready to concede until the STATE OF FLORIDA noted discrepancies in the vote count and found boxes of uncounted ballots, etc, and then the whole "hanging chads" issue came up (a re-count would have to determine voter "intent"), so Gore HALTED his concession based on the State of Florida's own demand for an investigation and re-count. Then the SCOTUS ruled that the re-count be halted by the Code deadline (see below).

Trump would have to have some kind of similar smoking gun but, remember, we have SCOTUS precedent now with a delay re the United States Code:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_3_of_the_United_States_Code

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5

In other words, an alleged controversy has to be based on undisputed facts and the matter has to be resolved by a set deadline.

The SCOTUS enforced that deadline.

You don't fuck with these things.

This country doesn't fuck with things like the set Inauguration schedule.

Harry Seaward
11-06-2016, 07:38 PM
Well I hope it's that simple. I have no doubt however that, if he wanted to, he could pay plenty of lawyers to find loopholes somewhere. I don't know that it would hold anything up indefinitely, or even for a considerable span of time, but I don't underestimate his lack of willingness to admit that he lost something. Let alone the biggest thing a person like him can lose, the most powerful position on the planet.

DigitalChaos
11-06-2016, 07:54 PM
Were you only thinking about inauguration? There are plenty of other things to put everything into gridlock.

This email thing will totally run until after the election. Supposedly Hillary had her maid printing out classified emails (wtf?).

Harry Seaward
11-06-2016, 08:20 PM
Were you only thinking about inauguration? There are plenty of other things to put everything into gridlock.

I'm not sure. Just thinking about Trump doing whatever he can to stall in general.


This email thing will totally run until after the election. Supposedly Hillary had her maid printing out classified emails (wtf?).

...what? FBI Director Comey just released a statement a few hours ago that said that the FBI had gone over every email to and from Clinton, from the batch of newly discovered emails announced on Oct 28, and found nothing that would change the decision he made in July. The email thing is over. (And the Trump Youth are all my favorite colors of butthurt.) (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5bi7tr/who_am_i_to_question_the_fbi/)

allegro
11-06-2016, 08:24 PM
Well I hope it's that simple. I have no doubt however that, if he wanted to, he could pay plenty of lawyers to find loopholes somewhere. I don't know that it would hold anything up indefinitely, or even for a considerable span of time, but I don't underestimate his lack of willingness to admit that he lost something. Let alone the biggest thing a person like him can lose, the most powerful position on the planet.

Bush filed a lawsuit, too.

You can read it, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/00-836

SCOTUS Opinion here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

It doesn't matter who files it, nobody violates US Code.

The SCOTUS has made that very clear.

Re emails: the only law that exists that applies to Clinton, as a civilian, regards malicious intent, not the transport of confidential material in and of itself (not criminal for civilians), hence why no charges have or will be brought against her.

NOBODY in Government - Republican, Independent, SCOTUS - would back Trump if he pulled a sour grapes stunt with no merit other than his own ego. The SCOTUS would throw it out for lack of merit and everything would carry on, because the lack thereof is a Constitutional crisis. We CANNOT go without a President. CAN'T. The Electoral College will pick SOMEBODY AND THAT SOMEBODY will be inaugurated on January 20th.

I know that some people love the idea of anarchy but our founding fathers deliberately set up a system that prevents this.

Harry Seaward
11-06-2016, 08:41 PM
Bush filed a lawsuit, too.

You can read it, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/00-836

SCOTUS Opinion here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

It doesn't matter who files it, nobody violates US Code.

The SCOTUS has made that very clear.

Re emails: the only law that exists that applies to Clinton, as a civilian, regards malicious intent, not the transport of confidential material in and of itself (not criminal for civilians), hence why no charges have or will be brought against her.

NOBODY in Government - Republican, Independent, SCOTUS, anybody - would back Trump if he pulled a sour grapes stunt with no merit other than his own ego. The SCOTUS would throw it out for lack of merit and everything would carry on, because the lack thereof is a Constitutional crisis. We CANNOT go without a President. CAN'T. The Electoral College will pick SOMEBOFYZ BUT THAT SOMEBODY will be inaugurated on January 20th.

Maybe I should be more clear, I'm not concerned about Trump winning anything or getting his way. I'm concerned about him clogging up the legal system with his fit-throwing rage for weeks/months. I have no doubt any shit he pulls will get thrown out eventually, but there will always be a process that needs to be followed for that to happen. Filing a hundred lawsuits that precedent ensures he'll lose doesn't necessarily mean that it'll only take one day for the courts to tell him to fuck off.

allegro
11-06-2016, 08:43 PM
Again, that can't happen. The US Code clearly provides deadlines by which the Electors much adhere.

We already have an example of this happening. A case was filed, it immediately went to the FLORIDA SUPREME COURT and then IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Because the US Code indicated a December 10th final deadline for a FINAL Electoral decision.

AND THAT IS SET IN STONE, HENCE THE LANDMARK SCOTUS DECISION TO *NOT* ALLOW A RECOUNT IN FLORIDA.

WHICH IS WHY GEORGE W BUSH WAS INAUGURATED ON JANUARY 20, 2000.

In other words, don't worry.

Look, as has been stated on here as nauseum, I've been in law for nearly 30 years, I'm certified in Civil Litigation. Even standard civil lawsuits don't take very long to get booted by the court if they have no merit. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT A STANDARD LAWSUIT. This stops our government from operating!!!!

Harry Seaward
11-06-2016, 08:54 PM
Again, that can't happen. The US Code clearly provides deadlines by which the Electors much adhere.

We already have an example of this happening. A case was filed, it immediately went to the FLORIDA SUPREME COURT and then IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Because the US Code indicated a December 10th final deadline for a FINAL Electoral decision.

AND THAT IS SET IN STONE, HENCE THE LANDMARK SCOTUS DECISION TO *NOT* ALLOW A RECOUNT IN FLORIDA.

WHICH IS WHY GEORGE W BUSH WAS INAUGURATED ON JANUARY 20, 2000.

Okay, I guess I misread somewhere. Cool.

(Although December 10th is a long way away. =| )

allegro
11-06-2016, 09:03 PM
Sup? :)



Hey, I also like instances of unprecedented legal shenanigans unfolding, just out of fascination for the bounds of our own system.
Our system is actually PRETTY FUCKING AMAZING. Other countries marvel at it, I marvel at it every day I work in it. I sit in law libraries and read case law FOR FUN. On one hand, you seem to want to uphold the Constitution and its accompanying Codes and then the next minute you seem to want to see it all get trashed for fun. I don't think you and I could ever be friends.

allegro
11-06-2016, 09:04 PM
No but they would love anything that causes gridlock for Hillary. And all the republicans who dislike Trump would be onboard for something that has no chance of Trump getting office.
They are there to uphold the Constitution; this is the opposite.

neorev
11-06-2016, 09:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsYvCmkbhs8

allegro
11-06-2016, 09:10 PM
Just like it was "over" the first time they came to a conclusion? Anything new could do the same thing Weiner's laptop did.

The maid story, for instance, could be an example. The FBI didn't investigate the maid too heavily and didn't take her computer.


We also have the FBI investigating the Clinton Foundation.

The new investigation was ridiculous; the only new revelation would be emails indicating that she tried to sell nuclear weapons to Cuba via her private server.

And if they are investigating the Clinton Foundation, they had damn well be investigating the Trump Foundation which used funds to pay Trump's legal fees (illegal), campaign expenses, expenses for giant Trump portraits that he auctioned off, etc.

allegro
11-06-2016, 09:26 PM
Most forms of anarchy could exist under the Constitution. I'm more of a Classical Liberal. Most people, today, couldn't tell you the difference between the two. But there is a difference in my ideological politics (aka if we were in a perfect utopia) and my pragmatic politics.

Using the Constitution to do things like create gridlock do not remove the Constitution.
YES IT DOES. Honestly, do you hear yourself sometimes?

It's one thing to not pass a budget, it's another thing to NOT HAVE A PRESIDENT.

That is not gridlock, that's a Constitutional Crisis. Our System provides several ways in which that can NEVER happen. It leaves us vulnerable.

You don't know the Law as much as you think. I'm done wasting time, I'm going to go finish my marathon viewing of "The Crown."

allegro
11-06-2016, 09:54 PM
She could be POTUS, but in a situation where her power is reduced, possibly to the point of the VP having to act as POTUS.

I don't know all the options. Can POTUS be denied security briefings for a temporary time?
NOTHING is going to happen.

I suggest that you read this.
(http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html)


Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. “It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”

Most troubling, researchers found a suspicious pattern in the White House email system blackouts, including periods when there were no emails available from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. “That the vice president’s office, widely characterized as the most powerful vice president in history, should have no archived emails in its accounts for scores of days—especially days when there was discussion of whether to invade Iraq—beggared the imagination,” says Thomas Blanton, director of the Washington-based National Security Archive. The NSA (not to be confused with the National Security Agency, the federal surveillance organization) is a nonprofit devoted to obtaining and declassifying national security documents and is one of the key players in the effort to recover the supposedly lost Bush White House emails.The media paid some attention to the Bush email chicanery but spent considerably less ink and airtime than has been devoted to Clinton’s digital communications in the past 18 months. According to the Boston social media analytics firm Crimson Hexagon, which ran a study for Newsweek, there have been 560,397 articles mentioning Clinton’s emails between March 2015 and September 1, 2016.

In 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which mandated that all presidential and vice presidential records created after January 20, 1981, be preserved and that the public, not the president, owned the records. The following year, the Reagan administration installed the White House’s rudimentary first email system.Despite the PRA, neither the Reagan nor the George H.W. Bush administration maintained email records, even as the number of White House emails began growing exponentially. (The Bush administration would produce around 200 million.) In 1989, a federal lawsuit to force the White House to comply with the PRA was filed by several groups, including the National Security Archive, which at the time was mostly interested in unearthing the secret history of the Cold War. The suit sparked a last-minute court order, issued in the waning hours of the first Bush presidency, that prevented 6,000 White House email backup tapes from being erased.

The supposedly lost emails also prevented Congress from fully investigating, in 2007, the politically motivated firing of nine U.S. attorneys. When the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed related emails, Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, said many were inaccessible or lost on a nongovernmental private server run by the RNC and called gwb43.com. The White House, meanwhile, officially refused to comply with the congressional subpoena.Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) called the president’s actions “Nixonian stonewalling” and at one point took to the floor in exasperation and shouted, “They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!” His House counterpart, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), said Bush's assertion of executive privilege was unprecedented and displayed “an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government.”In court in May 2008, administration lawyers contended that the White House had lost three months’ worth of email backups from the initial days of the Iraq War. Bush aides thus evaded a court-ordered deadline to describe the contents of digital backup believed to contain emails deleted in 2003 between March—when the U.S. invaded Iraq—and September. They also refused to give the NSA nonprofit any emails relating to the Iraq War, despite the PRA, blaming a system upgrade that had deleted up to 5 million emails. The plaintiffs eventually contended that the Bush administration knew about the problem in 2005 but did nothing to fix it.Eventually, the Bush White House admitted it had lost 22 million emails, not 5 million. Then, in December 2009—well into Barack Obama’s administration—the White House said it found 22 million emails, dated between 2003 and 2005, that it claimed had been mislabeled. That cache was given to the National Archives, and it and other plaintiffs agreed, on December 14, 2009, to settle their lawsuit. But the emails have not yet been made available to the public.

What Clinton did is not unprecedented. This is a manufactured "crisis" in order to try to create controversy and a bunch of dumbasses are falling for it.

Harry Seaward
11-07-2016, 01:34 AM
Wikileaks apparently released the second batch of leaked DNC emails a few hours ago. For the past half an hour or so, Wikileaks and Twitter have both been under DDOS attacks. Wikileaks was mostly fine for me, Twitter was down completely in Northern California and NYC where myself and a friend are, possibly worldwide by the sounds of it. Everything seems to be back up in running order now, for the time being...

So what do you guys think? Was this a coordinated effort by the DNC, Clinton campaign, US Federal Government in an effort to soften the blow of these emails being released? Fear of something terrible being discovered? 4chan script kiddies having a laugh? Is such a powerful attack possible by amateur hackers or could this only have been perpetrated by a professional, powerful organization? Was it Russia or another foreign state-backed agent in an effort to make the DNC and co look guilty? A publicity stunt by Wikileaks themselves, Russia, or a Trump allied/aligned organization to force every news organization in the country to say the words "Twitter" and "Wikileaks" and "new DNC email leak" on national television?

Speculate away, I want to hear what you guys have to say!

allegro
11-07-2016, 01:44 AM
It was probably the same thing that took it out a few weeks ago.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/how-a-bunch-of-hacked-dvr-machines-took-down-twitter-and-reddit/505073/

For the record:
30 million votes have been cast already across 38 states.

Jinsai
11-07-2016, 01:56 AM
I made a bet with some guy who is a friend of a friend on this election. He "friends" me online.

hollllllleeeeeeeee shit... opening up Facebook right now is the most frustrating thing in the world. I might need a total media blackout.